skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It won't. The only "goalpost" I have is: congrats, you've invented banks...

Actually you moved it from "holding your cryptocurrency" to being a bank with safety nets.

If you want someone to hold your funds with guarantees to make sure you don't mishandle them then you use dollars in a bank. But if you want to put anything other than, it will not have those guarantees or protections. Only dollars have been given these privileges. You have none of these privileges on other things like stocks, bonds, property, etc. But you can (and do) still hold them in banks and institutions without the guarantees you're asking for. Cryptocurrency is currently treated as an investment and a property (in the US) and will have the same guarantees available to it as stocks, bonds and other property from traditional institutions because that is the risk profile they have established and understand best.

So, if you want the guarantees associated w US dollars, then you need to use US dollars. But having those guarantees from an institution holding your assets was never a goal of Bitcoin... that is, it intended to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It is to distribute the power we currently give to those who manage monetary policy instead to a network of trust-less actors. It is to enable individuals with the means to accumulate and protect wealth. It provides permission-less commerce between private parties who would otherwise be prevented from using their assets as they choose.

It is up to society how it uses and enables Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. If society chooses to treat it in a way that it doesn't deserve the guarantees you seek, then you should seek elsewhere in the market to get the guarantees you desire. And those which are looking for the above value propositions will be able to consider cryptocurrency among their options. Just because cryptocurrency does not do what you're asking, that doesn't make it any less useful to the rest of the market with different needs from yours.
Kind of an aside but it seems like there are SEO pages which dynamically adjust their displayed text in the search results to your search query...how does that work? Isn't search result text indexed in advance? Or is this some sort of paid feature from google, where your search terms are injected into a template?

Whatever it is it's really annoying because usually these results link to another search on a shopping site and more often than not those results come up empty anyway.
That makes sense. This is the most convincing reason I've come across in this thread.

How do code completion work in languages where the predicate goes before the subject?
But this kind of functional composition often doesn't have first-class support in the language syntax. That is, it often requires you to rely on helper functions or libraries. As a result, it's not nearly as readable or intuitively obvious as the chaining example (and this is in contrast to mathematical notation, where functional composition is very clear, in my opinion).
been using ublock origin for years I have no idea what you're talking about. good luck though
Again, your definitions of "natural" and "supernatural" are not ones that anyone else uses.

Natural laws are observed within nature, which makes them a part of nature. To claim that natural laws are supernatural simply because they're abstractions, and that consciousness is therefore supernatural regardless of its nature, is absurd. It's a rhetorical cheat, not an argument.
The open-source language for data privacy
That's a good point. They are taxing paid apps and not taxing ad-supported apps. Which incentivizes the ad-model and therefore reduces the number of paid apps.

This has been the case since the beginning with mobile app stores so who knows how the distribution of paid vs ad-supported apps would be if this wasn't the case.
The Prototype js library was pretty huge back in the day when monkey patching was all the rage.
I think there are ways to do this correctly but it has to be more static pages with JS enhancement and/or making certain sections standalone "single page apps". It sounds like you're halfway in-between and that leads to the sorts of issues you're talking about. Being halfway in-between does mean that you're also halfway to an SPA, so maybe just commit fully to that direction?

Personally, I find webpacker to be straightforward and not that magical relative to the asset pipeline.
Apple has always argued that the 30% is not a payment processing fee. It's the App Store fee, which until today has bundled their payment processing fee with fees to cover their other expenses (and make them a tidy profit).

The argument over alternative payment methods has always struck me as odd for precisely this reason--throughout the Epic case Apple has made it clear that if they allowed alternative payment methods they would still charge the 30% fee for the other services.

Is 30% (or 27%) too steep for what the App Store provides? Probably. But fighting over the 30% as a payment processing fee is a huge misstep, because regulators will always take Apple's side on that question.
Apple's on-device scanning experiment failed miserably. It was (at least, co-opted as) a litmus test for working around the post-Snowden E2EE-at-scale status quo in which we find ourselves.

I don't have enough background to understand the implications of EARN IT for the LGBT community. What is occuring, though, is a lack of common ground between libertarians and law enforcement:

If the tech idealists and law enforcement types fail to find common ground to develop robust compromises, EARN IT, which will be implemented sub-optimally out of convenience, will have the negative consequences noted by the techno-libertarian crowd.

However, a sound compromise does exist. It's just that nobody is talking about it, because most folks have strong opinions at one end or the other. The "edge", as it may be, is slated to introduce tens of trillions in new tech value in the coming decades -- all in support of hyperscale networking. It's a chance to find robust solutions that satisfy most parties, but not if the libertarians maintain the hard-line. It's up to the tech community to develop responsible encryption recovery techniques, because clearly law enforcement and congress are too provincial to understand what's at stake. Yet, by maintaining the hard line, congress will get their way, and we'll be less safe as a result.

Responsible encryption recovery is possible if you throw out the existing mechanisms of centralization along with "trust us, we're the NSA" mentality. Build your techniques around ideas that reject centralization, and reject mathematically unauditable recovery schemes. Reject techniques that exclude civil libertarians from the systems of checks and balances needed.

I say this with urgency because finding common ground is the only way we'll achieve a more responsible system of oversight for policing our private comms.
Not sure if it's relevant but I liked the approach of Pavel Fatin in measuring editor latency [0]. It uses OS level input events and actual rendering on screen. So testing the same editor/file with different settings might yield results that are different depending on your scheduling config, while staying close to a "real world" example. He shared [1] the tool he made for the tests.

I'd be curious to know your results regardless of the technique used.

[0] https://pavelfatin.com/typing-with-pleasure/
[1] https://github.com/pavelfatin/typometer
Think that should be possible in Kotlin as well, fwiw. Extension functions and extension properties are nice. And function with receivers make for some nice DSLs. All without monkey patching, which I consider a better way.
How can you be so sure there is no experience of being a rock? Surely it's wildly different from being a finger or a person, and perhaps, very boring from a human's perspective. I'm not sure why everybody insists you can have qualia or you can't, as if it's a binary thing. Perhaps it's a gradient. I would say there is something like being a plant, or something like being a computer program. Just because we are unable to imagine it as humans does not mean that it doesn't exist.

What makes my experience of seeing red any more special than the experience of a plant reacting to light? The fact that I can type about it on hackernews and the plant can't?
There is zero way to exactly replicate OPs query as Google heavily tailors results to each person, logged in or not.

And yes, people are shocked at the amount of ads google is pushing.
Designing devices for long-term care and reuse
"consciousness" as a philosophical question is not about the ability to detect state in the world (including your own state) and reacting to it. it is not about self-replication.

It is about having subjective experience aka "qualia". It is about "it being like something to be you", contrasted with, e.g. being a rock (which most people agree, it is not like anything to be).
To my knowledge only the UK, Australia and Canada will allow remote work on a visitor visa with the caveat that the business must be based outside the country.
They are usually search result pages with the keyword in the url parameter, and they link to those search results elsewhere on their site for Google to find
>but it's frankly confusing that you think this simply cannot happen to your perception of subjective awareness

Because subjective awareness is not a perception, they're two entirely different kinds of of concepts. Equating the two would seems stranger to me than equating say the feeling of pain with the concept of a needle. You could convince me both the needle and the pain are illusionary, but not that my experience is. That you seem to be genuinely convinced that subjective experience and our flawed sensory apparatuses are even in the same ballpark implies to me that you probably either do not have that experience, or that unlike in my case, your experience is somehow not connected to the output that typing fingers can produce
Personally I also ran into some inexcusable bugs on my first try of FreeCAD recently. Sadly I don't have the link anymore, but the problem was offsets being incorrectly calculated in certain cases, and I found it to be a long standing bug in their issue tracker. There wasn't an easy way to work around it so I had to look elsewhere. Too bad, because FreeCAD did seem quite fine otherwise (Note: I never used SolidWorks, and my demands are amateur level).

For programmers I highly recommend OpenSCAD or Cadquery, which let you write code to build your models instead of using GUI. With this approach, "parametric" comes naturally, and so you don't need to learn a special constraint system, it's just your code (and a bit of math).

Cadquery was a bit hard to get started with being essentially a bunch of python scripts, but it's also more versatile and more powerful than OpenSCAD, and has a good collection of examples in their docs. OpenSCAD is still great for e.g. building simple models for 3D printing.
Good point! I just added a new "Nomad" option. There's also an "Other" option for anything else.
NASA and SpaceX investigating parachute issue on Dragon spacecraft
IANAL, so can someone please explain this section:

“(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider—

“(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services;

“(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or

“(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.”.
Why Menlo Ventures Invested in Julia Computing
There are two different things here.

First is the Apple Store, and you are correct you have no right to have your application on it.

Second is the hardware device I paid money for and exists in my pocket. There is no reasonable right that Apple says "Only we can put a program on it, and you will have no ability to run your own programs on it"

We live in a world where hardware makers of all kinds think we own them a permanent rent. It is a poor and expensive path to let them continue.
> FB is one of the most developer hostile platforms that I've worked with

Have you done development on Apple platforms? That might push FB into second place....
I love that line. It's like coke saying we sell sugar water, not soda.
There is no risk to the hospital system. There have been 2 years to prepare and we just had 1,000,000 covid cases is NSW and there was barely a blip. There were around 3,000 hospitalisations at peak and it seemed to mostly be vaccinated people although the table over at covidlive.com.au might be misleading me.

This isn't an emergency any more, this is routine.

> I also consider getting vaccinated to be one of the Article 29 "duties to the community".

That is an extreme hand wave. It appears the argument is "We can violate your human rights because you have a duty to do what I tell you". These are serious concerns, you may just handwave things like free travel or ability to see family with "you have a duty, but I don't feel a need to justify it" - but that isn't a respectable position.

What is the real risk to the community of these unvaccinated people? We've pretty much seen the worst case COVID scenario play out in the last 2 months and it doesn't seem like the unvaxxed have been a problem in the slightest. The campaign of bullying should end.
I am very suspicious this is a Just-So story. This BBC article seems to agree (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171027-the-magic-cakes-...). Also interestingly credits the marketing aspect to Ernest Dichter instead of Bernays.

Quote:
In later years, many would portray this as a pivotal moment in the history of cake mixes, the inflection point of a dramatic upward curve.

The truth is, though, that the cake companies already knew about the egg problem. In fact, as early as 1933 Duff had introduced a mix that had bakers add eggs themselves. “The housewife and the purchasing public in general seem to prefer fresh eggs and hence the use of dried or powdered eggs is somewhat of a handicap from a psychological standpoint,” reads the patent application (read more on Duff's cake patents in this lovely Bon Appetit story about cake mix). And actually, the mixes worked better that way. “The fact was one of the reasons cake mixes didn't taste good was they tasted like dried eggs,” says Shapiro. The companies performed surveys and asked women which version they would buy – the results were contradictory – and in the end, they just did as they pleased.
Arrangements that subsidize a large purchase (printer, paper towel dispenser, coffee maker, razor, smartphone, tractor, etc.) by locking the purchaser into an exclusivity agreement for consumables from the same company (ink, paper towels, coffee pods, razor blades, smartphone apps, tractor maintenance, etc.) are as old as these have been feasible. This innovation tremendously benefits both parties. I'm not sure why you'd dispense with it really.
Nothing like sort is hidden in class methods in Python.
Well said. There is another harder problem of consciousness: A lot of people miss the point of the hard problem of consciousness.
But did you read the canon rumors post? Without an ad blocker on mobile it is a relentless wall of ads with occasional sentences stuck between them... And of course a plea to allow notifications.
Subjectively, the chief advantage is readability for long chains of function composition. Compare list.fft.map(square).sum.sqrt to sqrt(sum(map(fft(list), square))). This is all a matter of taste, but IMO the former reads more easily.

It's a pretty trivial matter, so I wouldn't go breaking encapsulation everywhere just to support it. D has a feature called Universal Function Call Syntax where a.f(b, c) is sugar for f(a, b, c) for any free function, rendering those issues moot. I just wish more languages would pick it up!
I wish there was an app for this in 2010-ish. Would have saved me so much cell data.
Not only is it shocking that so many people want video content but once quality article websites are gone the quality of videos that use the written content online as the basis for the video scripts!
So what if it is cropped, is the amount of ads shown in the screenshot with no actual search results acceptable to you?
Does the fact OP has a smaller or larger resolution than you change your mind?
Truthfully, it should have been West and East Dakota, not North and South.

Happy to see both Dakotas have votes.
Good news: I just added a new "Nomad" option. There's also an "Other" option for anything else.
I've been logged in into the same google account for at least 10 years.

Google knows exactly who I am, and what I am/want/etc. Yet the moment I landed in the UK, suddenly, I'm English, most of the times getting just *.co.uk results, as if the rest of the world doesn't exist anymore.

I'll be honest, it was helpful to know at what hour the Iceland and Aldi next to my house will open/close, and I didn't even had to tell it my address or turn my location on (this is amazing actually), and when it suggested where to find a dentist since I didn't know the city... But that's pretty much it.
> RSpec is our primary example here - a limited and problematic DSL based on monkey-patching was turned into a beautiful, composable DSL which we still have in RSpec.

One of my most consistent experiences with Ruby is doing something the "wrong way" - but being able to do, due the language flexibility - and then later coming back to the problem and realizing the better solution, which ends up being more satisfactory and happier in every way.

Ruby lets you do whatever you want, however you want, but it makes the right way the most satisfying. Very handy for iterative development.
From a formal logic point of view, an analogy can be two types of argument. One is a valid form of argument, the other is not (i.e. it's fallacious).

The valid form is effectively an "argument to generalization", presented via an easier to understand "specialisation", but only keeping within the attributes of the general case.

E.g. if arguing X, and both X and Y are special cases of Z, an analogy is an argument on Z, presented through Y.

The fallacious variety is then any argument via a specialization Y, which makes use of attributes not present in the general case Z.

Given the above, the problem with using an analogy as an argument is as follows:

1. People tend to use the fallacious version, neglecting it does not apply to the general case. The response to such an analogy as a form of argument is simply to point out this fact. Unfortunately, people usually tend to focus on why the special attributes of Y are a bad argument in themselves, when in fact they should be ignored.

2. Even when people use the valid version, opponents will latch onto attributes, and make a motte-and-bailey attack. The correct defense to that is to reaffirm the validity of the "appeal to generalization" argument, and dismiss any attributes argued by the opponent which do not stem from the generalisation, thus invalidating the attack.

This of course is only useful in "discussions", where unlike a debate the aim is not to "win", but to refine arguments in search of better conclusions.

In a debate, one can therefore expect an analogy, even a logically valid one, to be a very weak debate strategy given the ease with which it can be attacked by a fallacy and the tediousness of the defense required to refute it, because this leaves the analogist in a position of constant, dry defense against a bombardment of vivid, emotionally charged motte-and-bailey arguments by their opponent, giving them ample opportunity to derail the debate to areas where they will have the higher ground.

So, I agree with another poster here. Analogies, particularly valid ones, are good for discussions ("sympathetic audiences"), but bad for debates ("antagonistic audiences").
> I would say it is more about having stateful client applications that implement some kind of client side model view controller and uses some kind of remote API vs. the traditional server applications that generated HTML views.

Hm, no, sorry, I complete disagree. TFA is complaining about some choice. It is indeed related to the frontend. Then goes on to complain about project structure, databases, API design patterns/technology, authentication, scheduled jobs (really?), email templates (just trolling at this point) and Websockets. What?

Sorry. No. This article isn’t about stateful client applications. Or client applications. It isn’t even about server-side rendering. It is about backend (and its backend), and nothing but. SPAs are not backend.

TFA most certainly isn’t about about server-side JavaScript.

It’s only about “serverless”. Whatever that may be.
I think "Jargon" would probably have been a much less controversial term than "Dialect" for expressing this idea.

"Dialect" implies that it's a sub-language, but Ruby is still Ruby no matter how many methods you add or modify.

Whereas a "Jargon" is a specialized vocabulary, and even sometimes some word change meaning as part of a jargon.

But I suppose that when you title your post like this, controversy is actually what you are looking for.
The way you pick dental insurance in the USA:

Pick the air carrier with the cheapest flight to Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve#Amazon
The title of this post is "For some searches the whole screen on Google is now ads" - I hope it's shocking that that's true, irrespective of if we can replicate the exact ad placements in this post?
Yes, they added refinements several years ago. That said I've been programming rails for probably 10 years, and I never see anyone use refinements, and I can count on one hand the number of times monkey patching has actually been a problem for me personally. I'm sure there are cases where it bit someone hard, but this is one of those things that a theoretically bad, but never seem to really have any impact in practice.
It's true. There are many supportive people too. I think the problem is that the 'mental disorder' guys are not banned. So they keep on commenting. Flagging doesn't work that well, because one already read the comment.
It's fun they seem to think fax travels over a different network than email.
What would hurd do that would interest Linux users?
Apple is 100% a mobile app company. They guard all the doors, they hold all the keys to the hardware device. Thereby they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale.
the problem with 2000k lights is that human night vision is much more sensitive to bluer light. you can use about half as much light while appearing as bright by moving to 3500k