skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh okay, I see the distinction. The library would be interpreted and not compiled to JS - and I guess there would be a needless performance penalty. So it wouldn't be of much use outside of this particular scenario.

Nonetheless it seems like something that'd be quite handy for bugreports and sharing code :) One thing I've noticed is that there is friction with writing minimal bugreports/demos/examples. It usually involves making a new repo with a `deps.edn`. Then you gotta push that to github and send a link.. It's all very doable but there is overhead and people don't want to have one off demo repos scattered everywhere for every issues they've responded to on Github. And the people on the other side of the equation don't really wanna pull and execute your mini-repos either. `add-libs` already lets you boil it down to a single file which is great, but having it all in an executable pastebin or forum comment block would mean everyone is seeming the same environment/configuration, same dependencies, same code and the same output.

That said, looking over a few of my projects I do have to admit that pure Clojure dependencies are the minority :)

Dependencies with their own JS or Java dependencies sounds more hairy.. I wasn't even thinking in that direction. I'm sure that's part of why add-libs is still a work in progress
Documents shed light on ID.me's messaging about powerful facial recognition tech
I can see how systematically denying someone services is harm, but refusal to engage with someone as an individual? I'm not convinced. At the end of the day you're compelling someone to perform work they don't want to do.

And I understand the "rules of our society" stuff, but I'm trying to get at it on principle. And I am not saying commerce should happen with no rules, that's a different discussion, I'm talking about this specific set of rules.
So by that logic—everyone benefits from tax funded military and police services, so the government can compel people to do whatever the government wants.
It's just so bad. When games install and you can actually play, which is a miracle, adding friends is like navigating a maze. I think we spent 20 minutes last time trying to get each other to show up and finding what you have to press/accept to actually befriend someone.

Not to mention that it basically kills modding if you don't also want to crack the game yourself/get a pre-cracked version from somewhere.
NGINX Plus? That’s a thing? Sheesh. what a business model.
But you are loosing title of the webpage if you are bookmarking this way which is quite important while searching.
State mandated morality worked so well in previous centuries. Why should bigotry be a crime?
I don't know if this is relevant, but it's been driving me nuts.

Wordle is a game that was on the speak and spell in like 1990. It had a different name. It taught me how to spell a lot of words, and especially about patterns of where letters are found.

It was actually my favorite game on the toy at the time, so maybe that says something about it just being a fairly fun game whether you get one word or not... I totally support turning this into an educational game for elementary school kids though, that really seems like how it's a smart game. It teaches you not just spelling but how letters combine, it's amazing.

edit: Let them get addicted to spelling instead of, I dunno, youtube. For adults maybe one a day totally makes sense. For kids? Let them go wild.
> if your family members are avowed violent criminals committed to attacking people based on their being a member of a group

The law doesn’t seem to require there be a victim, so I think that scenario would involve other laws and isn’t the intent of the law in question.
I said the popup was annoying but not deceitful. Those are two orthogonal axes.

Your question is about what's acceptable. My answer is:

1. If the site tricks me (makes me take an action that I would not have taken if the site had not misled me), that's unacceptable. So, roughly any degree of deceit is unacceptable to me.

2. If the site stops me from switching/closing tabs, or changes system settings (like the ones you describe) without me being cognizant of agreeing, that's unacceptable.

Showing 3 popups within a tab when I'm about to close it: that's annoying and douchy, and probably won't work on me, but I won't hate you for it.

From your list, c-j would definitely make me hate you. a and b might be OK if you're presenting me better offers (e.g. 10% off the first time, then 15%, finally 20% off the third time).
When you're taken out of a minor surgery, you're usually awake as you're wheeled from the operating theatre back to your ward. If I think though about the one time I had surgery, I remember being told to think of something relaxing, falling asleep, and then waking up back in the ward. It's really interesting to think about how there was a brief period where I was awake, yet making no memories.
For many us embedded folk, implementing soft float is a fact of life and isn’t impractical or uncommon. Not everyone lives in nodeJS land.
And yet, still an issue today
It’s a pretty critical difference to, for example, the billion+ Muslims in the world whose religion has very specific things to say about what “marriage” is, means, and is for: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-mar...
This x1000. This is why it always bites me; I know there's some magic incantation, but I always forget the one or the other; and you never notice until it causes downtime. The git repo is a huge help.
Ask HN: Where do you get your non-tech news from?
Is there a good way to aggregate news from sources you like?
Another important question is whether we want businesses to be able to discriminate against people.

Again, my suggestion — wherein she can’t make wedding websites for anyone — doesn’t compel speech. But if I had to abandon practicality, I would say she should be forced to make the website.
> Surely they could have had more nuanced reasons than that?

Their stated reasons were certainly nuanced and fairly well argued. They were also completely wrong, built on a stack of assumptions and biases. The whole thing was just a solid congealed lump of motivated reasoning driven by fear of change.

Plato and Socrates apparently feared literacy in common men, and bemoaned the decline of memorization and the tradition of oral instruction. After all, if you had a scroll, you could reread just the passage you wanted, divorced from it's context in a larger argument! Terrible!

The dangers of cheap books printed by the thousands on Gutenberg's invention were decried in tracts produced unironically on that selfsame malefic device.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, popular novels were the great danger, inflaming the passions of women, agitating men to be unhappy with their lot and make demands of their betters (or conversely encouraging idleness and escapism into fiction).

As far as I know, paperbacks as a format didn't get the same treatment, but cheap pulp magazines and comics certainly did.

And now the Internet is the Big Bad (not too long ago it was television, then transistor radios, D&D, and video games).

Algorithmic news feeds are currently causing problems, but that has more to do with the incentives of the businesses running them than anything inherent in the concept.
The bill is not just about aggravating circumstances.
The reason behind self hosting these services is you want these service to be available across all your devices. With desktop app all the bookmarks will be available only on your workstation not on mobile.

Ideally these should be hosted on Raspberry Pi which can run 24x7 and does not consume much power. But I would not recommend doing this setup unless you are hosting bunch of other services.
The linked article is intentionally misleading. Why would anyone take seriously the idea that the courts in Scotland regard "stirring up hatred" as the same thing as the courts in China? If that is the standard for criticism for every law in the west then throw the baby our with the bathwater, it is all useless. Why waste one's time with this disingenuous claptrap?
If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases.

There may be nuance here that you're not letting yourself see.
Oh, the… irony
Isn't this exactly how you would "legally" implement a digital dictatorship? You effectively give one person the ability to rule by secret decree, with arbitrary (digital) power that doesn't require a warrant, and allows them to target businesses and their customers without any evidence or even suspicion of guilt.

Would the government have sovereign immunity if a business was harmed by bugs introduced by their malware? As you say, the government could simply demand a company solve the halting problem, and fine them into bankruptcy for not complying.

Without an ability to know what is in the code, there is no way to determine if it is proportionate (or even intended) for achieving a lawful aim, and you presumably couldn't launch a judicial review of the executive decision without having to use some sort of secret court. Given that the operation is managed by the military, though, I imagine the government would just say that all the necessary evidence is classified.

Having arbitrary code execution on all services and devices in the country, and preventing any mention of the changes made, gives a digital dictator the ability to plant any evidence they want, exfiltrate any kompromat they want, and make any financial transactions they want against any political target with no paper trail or accountability.

Don't be surprised if Australia then makes a further push for electronic voting systems:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...
That's because you were being an asshole to a retail worker, who doesn't want to get into it with you and maybe get assaulted about company policy.

You foisted a potential risk onto someone without power. Don't do that.
No attack is necessary. Per https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364..., merely "stirring up hatred", even in the privacy of one's home, is enough.
FryAway Review: Dispose of Cooking Oil Safely and Easily
Careful, now. Someone might take that sentiment as stirring up hatred against someone with a protected characteristic, like Christians and Muslims.

But, ah, for srsly, they're worried about that too
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/45331/catholic-bisho...
If your only criteria for concern is "existentially concluding" then I'd say you need to recalibrate your barometer. The biggest problem with this approach is that you'll likely only recognize such an event after it is already impossible to stop. We ended up getting very close to throwing out the past election results, wouldn't that be such an event? Or do you think it doesn't qualify because we managed to stopped it this time?

While I somewhat understand your reasoning behind not being concerned, the danger is that there is no guarentee the US will continue to exist forever, and history is full of failed democracies. If you're unwilling to have any concern over the stability of our democracy because it has got this far, then by the time you notice it has failed it will be too late to do anything to fix it.

And in the meantime, bad Presidents have and will continue to do terrible things to people, pretending like it's no big deal is not good. The fact that the US still exists is little consolation to those who were harmed by poor presidential decisions.
If a site shows me a special offer (e.g. an extra 10% off) when I'm about to abandon my cart, that's OK with me. Just like if I'm walking out of a store because I didn't get an acceptable price, and the owner calls to me as I'm passing through the doorway.

If the alert says something untrue or misleading (last day of sale, virus on computer, 1000th visitor) that's deceitful.
The Christian bible does arguably say that homosexuality is a vice and perhaps a form of idolatry, but it says absolutely nothing about doing business with gay people. Nothing in the Bible says that you shouldn’t make a cake or website for someone because they are a “sinner.”

What the people behind these lawsuit really seem to believe in is dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism - the political belief that the United States should be a Christian theocracy. The idea that you need to shun people for not following Christian religious laws is neither in the Bible, a tenant of mainstream Christianity, nor a political belief compatible with a free society.
That would just reward people who spend years memorizing entire dictionaries. Scrabble is already too skewed in favor of the elite players, IMO.

As paulcole says about chess, "the better player nearly always wins," and that's a problem when the only way to win is to turn the game into an obsession or a career. A big part of Wordle's appeal is that a reasonable vocabulary, and not a savant-level one, is all you need to bring to the table.
I guess we'll see? It doesn't actually read like it's that broadly defined -- they explicitly allow e.g. ridiculing religion and trying to get people to stop practicing their faith and it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is a fine antidote for bad laws if you believe most people are reasonable.

It's been ~a year with no controversial applications yet so perhaps it's fine?
Huh, I was going to wonder if this inspired the AI safety concept about how you shouldn't program a superintelligent AI to optimize the number of things it can see that look like human smiles, since unfortunately there are many ways to maximize that other than making real people genuinely happy.

But it seems like the Doctor Who episode is from 2017 and so it could potentially have been inspired the other way around.
early 80's BigTrak was very popular, i brought mine to science class when we were focusing on logo. these were cloned and given update fanfare but no new models yet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Trak

i guess amazon took up the torch
Hello, you seem reasonable so I'd like to take the risky step of engaging with you 4 levels deep in an HN politics thread.

So, let's keep the scope of this to disabled people. Let's also both assume we're decent, non-evil people who are steadfastly against the assault of innocent disabled people on the street.

Why is it worse to attack a disabled person because you hate disabled people, than any other reason? I'm assuming you think it's worse to attack a disabled person from a place of anti-disabled hatred, than it would be attack a disabled person for a host of other reasons (ie, they were viewed them as an easier target, or they just happened to be closest to someone having a violent outburst).

I take the view that assaulting innocent people in general is unacceptable, and don't attach a large amount of weight to the motivation. On what basis does hatred of the disabled deserve special consideration, in your view?
Indeed, it is not just about that, but that is the principle element of the law at issue. It is certainly also true that if you were to host a race-based violence promotion party in your home you might be subject to prosecution.

It is also clear under the law that if you hosted a "race X is inferior" party at your house you would not be in violation of the law.

But if you had the "race X is inferior" party and then assaulted a member of race X you'd face a longer sentence for that assault!
There is none. This has been asserted for years on HN but I’ve never seen a modicum of evidence for it.
> are modern liberalized watered down, and attempting to be hip and "keep up with the times"

As was every transliteration, translation and revised version of their religious texts over time. As was the new testament to the old. Likely very little that is practiced today reflects the "original" version of the religions, whatever that may be.
Cash is surprisingly expensive for businesses.

Through mistakes and malice money will disappear.

On top of that you have to spend a not insignificant amount of manager time counting and running money to and from the bank. If you deal with large amounts of cash then you get to file CTRs frequently.

In addition to all that you have to deal with the physical infrastructure. Cash drawers, safes, money bags, etc…

Having worked in both retail and in banks I can promise that cash is a major pain point.
Fort Worth invention filters coronavirus particles from air
I have a hard time believing it was the inability to contact Tesla and not the large sums of money and implied favors from legacy automotive manufacturers which persuaded politicians to pass (or try to pass) overtly anti-Tesla policy.

Similarly, I have a hard time believing that were it for a Tesla PR department Joe Biden's team would've been aware that it was Tesla that was the driving force behind American EV efforts and not Ford or GM (the latter of whom sold a whopping 26 EVs nationally in 2021 Q4).

Similarly, I have a hard time believing that automotive publications that regularly test drive expensive cars were unable to get their hands on a Tesla because Tesla lacks a press department.

Most of all, I find it conspicuous that all of these things are contemporaneous with Tesla eating legacy automotive's lunch rather than the time Musk dissolved Tesla's PR department a year prior.
Awesome that's amazing thanks for posting, im blown away
I am not sure how you can stay at a company for more than 24 months (maybe 48 for FAANGMULA) without there becoming an enormous gap between your compensation and market compensation.

In Canada, you become a veteran at 18 months it seems.
Could you clarify what you mean without using the words right, left, or neoliberal? All of which are extremely vague.
Or if they're mistaken about who the culprit was.
unless you're in a position to direct decision making without making self-sacrificing choices, you are not complicit to anything. The person above you that made the decision (and either profited, or somehow benefited from it) is.
Yes, they corrupted the bible and their religion, we know that, and that's the point I was making. The trinity being a major invention for example. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't remnants and fragments of Truth from the original Message.
What's Biden's excuse? What about the politicians from Oklahoma and West Virginia?
Anglosphere countries didn't have this problem even just 6 years ago, and the last time it had something like it was the 1950s American McCarthyism. This Scottish law is the same project using the same tactics as they did in the 50s and 60s. Sometimes I think the people who make these laws and policies just hate themselves and the world, and they need for someone else to destroy them - so they do things like this that push and push and inevitably end in suffering and/or bloody revolt. One cannot pass legislation like that without an underlying desire for that outcome. Scotland isn't the only one, but it's all running the same game.
Oh I know. Hardly inspires confidence; all of those examples are clear bugs declared features because of poor programming practices.
The creator added this specifically to add some “juice,” a phrase from the talk [Juice It or Lose It][1], where they describe it as meaning:

> A juicy game feels alive and responds to everything you do, tons of cascading action and response for minimal user input.

He talked about this as the end of a [podcast][2] he was recently the guest on, Syntax

[1]: https://youtu.be/Fy0aCDmgnxg

[2]: https://syntax.fm/show/430/creator-of-wordle-josh-wardle
Required or not, it is desirable.
Except that interracial marriage is not prohibited by Christianity.
Weird, it's working for me? What browser are you using?
They removed it from the master dictionary as well.
Ah yes. “Objectivity” is often used as lacking bias. Truth and clarity require taking a position and advocating it. The only way that’s unbiased is if there isn’t anything at stake in the truth or clarity thereof.
idk why this is at the bottom. My life experience of gluten and anxiety has been very much the same.

Happy tummy happy head.
> Point performance is the worst way to decide about error handling.

My point is exactly that. It's more important to have a single common way of doing error handling than it is to have a small perf improvement. That's why I recommend return values. You'll never hit a perf problem with them.

Exceptions cannot be used in code hot paths (~thousands of iterations) when it's not a small perf problem anymore. Therefore, they cannot be your only method for signaling failure. And therefore, assuming we care about consistency and composability of code, it's far better to use return value based error handling unless you have good reason (almost never). Ideally with syntatic sugar from the compiler (see Rust, Zig, Swift, etc).

> when you need code to clean up, the destructors are right there.

Exceptions are not needed to achieve this. C++ calls the same 'well tested' destructors when you return from a function.

The one point in your favor, that I acknowledged above, is that C++ requires exceptions to report failure from Constructors and Destructors, for OOP, std::vector initialization, for much of the standard library etc. Thats a travesty.
I mean, Canada has jurisdiction over whether or not they can enter Canada, do business in Canada, freeze assets in Canadian banks, etc.
That feels like yet another aspect of Wordle's appeal to me: the fact that it starts with a "clean slate", where you can enter any word you want. It's an opportunity for creativity, spontaneity, and serendipity. One of my favorite parts of the game is pulling that first word out of the air.
Hiring is such a headache not only from the employee perspective but also from the employer perspective. There have been numerous tech companies that have tackled this, but mostly in the form of job boards, or job boards with a twist (AI, social media, etc...)

There has to be a better solution.
> Never compromise your ethics for a paycheck. It's absurdly easy to find employment as a software engineer.

at some level, you're not really compromising your ethics for a paycheck if you could just find alternative employment.

The real test is when you cannot find alternative employment, would you still not compromise your ethics?
Unit Tests are accepted as a standard thing in the industry. TDD not so much. Is it great? I don't think so. It does not matter whether you wrote the tests first and then developed the feature, or the other way round. Literally no people manager in my career has mentioned TDD in any sort of setting. In fact the majority have been okay with skipping even writing exhaustive Unit Tests when push came to shove and something needed to be delivered. In the case of statically typed languages, even Unit Tests diminish in value compared to dynamically typed languages: the compiler provides a certain degree of safety that is simply not conferred by the dynamically typed language. A lot of software is written in strongly typed + statically typed languages such as Java and C# by developers who simply do not care about TDD or the software development methodology du jour.
fast.ai is built on top of pytorch just like pytorch lightning
'can' is inherent (a capability of the child)

'do' depends on context

I am capable of driving fast, and weaving in and out of traffic on the freeway. But I choose not to, due to the risk/reward trade-off.

If I were in a different situation (e.g. sick child needing to get to hospital urgently), I might act differently.

Measuring my behaviour in one context may tell you little about what I can and might do in another.
Canadian citizen in 2022: you give 40$ to the wrong cause and you are cut off from the banking system.
Words have typical meanings and then they have legal meanings, you can look at the details of the first conviction under the law and draw conclusions about the threshold for "stirring up hatred":
https://www.report-it.org.uk/three_men_convicted_in_first_pr...

It is very clear to me that the Scottish courts regard stirring up hatred to mean a specific threat of violence but YMMV.