skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've been following Bunny (BunnyCDN/Bunny.net) for a while and love what they are doing. Couple of suggestions:

• Every code snippet should be copy/pasteable (and work well), that article might be the entry point to what many are doing.

• I have this feeling this is following Cloudflare's Workers style of `addEventListener('fetch', eventHandler);`. I need to write a 500-word essay on that, but the short version is that I strongly believe that it'd be way better for their clients if the client could just do `export default async function handleDns(event) { ... }` instead of having a global (what?) context where there's a function unattached called `addEventListener` and you need to know it's for `"dns"` (is there even other possibility here?) and that the respondWith() only accepts a promise, which is not common (it's more common to accept an async fn which then becomes a promise). Compare these two snippets, current and with my small proposal:

// Current API:
addEventListener('dns', event => {
event.respondWith(handleRequest(event.request));
});

function handleRequest(request) {
return new TxtRecord('Hello world!, 30);
}

vs

// Potential/suggested API:
export default function handleDns(event) {
return new TxtRecord('Hello world!, 30);
}

This way it's easier to write, to reason about, to test, etc. It's all advantages from the client point of view, and I understand it's slightly more code from Bunny's point of view but it could be done fairly trivially on Bunny's end; they could just wrap the default export with this code on their infra level, simplifying and making dev lives a lot easier:

// Wrapper.js
import handler from './user-fn.js';

addEventListener('dns', event => {
if (typeof handler === 'function') {
event.respondWith(handler(event));
} else {
// Could support other basic types here, like
// exporting a plain TxtRecord('Hello', 30);
throw new Error('Only handler functions supported now');
}
});
The idea that we "made" Einstein to begin with is risible anyway.
True, but it would be more convincing if they did provide the actual factors behind the murders. Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position.
Pinning an argument to "based on Wikipedia mentions" isn't scientific. Overlooking the lack of real data, it is a well written argument.
The lack of filter availability doesn't stop spammers bypassing even Google's uber-filters, so it's not much of an argument really. The arm race is what it is. The point is having a system that can react fast enough to remove the spam from most systems once it is identified.
Perhaps the clue is "aristocratic tutors"

Perhaps the problem is not a decline in genius, but that too many geniuses are now given the opportunity to fulfill their potential (whereas before they'd have lacked education, compared to aristocrats), making it difficult to stand out and receive popular acclaim.
> First of all, they vast majority of the article is n=1 where they sampled one year.

Wouldn't "n" be number of murders?

> Furthermore, the entire analysis is stupid because 2020 was the pandemic year.

It was a pandemic year in every one of these states.

> Go to [1] and sort by median household income. What you will find is basically the same ranking as in this article. What do you believe - poverty or political preference leads to increases of crime?

What if the two of them are linked? If a handful of states follow the same political ideology, and also share an outsized poverty and murder rate it is worth analyzing if those same policies have an impact.
I am a 40 year old man, so obviously, I am totally out of touch and lame, but I have not heard of any of those groups except Poppy, who I haven't listened to since ~2016. The algorithm on YouTube stopped recommending her and she completely disappeared from my life.

However, I find it impossible to believe that my dad at age 40 would not have heard of Madonna, Salt 'N' Peppa, Ace of Base, Milli Vanilli , etc. Even my dad in his peak lame years would have been aware of the Milli Vanilli scandal as it was happening.
I can't find support for those flags outside of two files, I'm 90% sure the kernel requires CMPXCHG8B which isn't supported on 486 iirc
Dunhuang is in China and these were taken from Dunhuang without permission.

Why is the British Library hanging on to ancient manuscripts that were taken from China without permission? Why is repatriation of all these cultural treasures not a priority?
I think the author answers half of the question in his post: at least in the hard sciences, it’s becoming massively harder to stand out because most, if not all, the low hanging fruit has been picked.
The second half is that there are far more scientists/writers/artists/etc now than ever before, and more people have access to all their work, meaning no one/handful of individuals naturally rises to prominence.
I think in general this is actually a good thing. The only problem is it becomes harder for the general population to follow what’s going on in certain fields, either in the present or as historical context, because they no longer have very easily identifiable figureheads.

Edit: to be clear, I think the idea that somehow genius or general intelligence and deep expertise is declining is laughable. If anything we’re seeing an explosion of expertise in all the fields I work in.
I'd like to look at some county level maps of this data.
To add on:

- Largely inactive since 2019 until ~15 days ago.

- Ukrainian with ML background[1]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20083793#20093381, Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210224044558/https://news.ycom...
Yes, thank you. I’m tired of the constant negativity.
Lady Gaga is not new, grandpa.
"Uppge" is tricky because normally the way the word is used today, it means to give information, but in this case it's a way of throwing around the verb phrase "ge upp" (lit. 'give up', mentioned further down on Wiktionary), which means quite exactly to surrender.

The text is from the 60's and it shows in exactly the type of language used.
Most communities and bot network coordinators these days organize through Telegram. There's ton of easily fake materials (propaganda stuff, staged fakes, deceptively out of context or material first claimed to be something then appearing on another channel as something else).

After the initial piloting fake information spreads like virus.
> The world needs them to focus on the greater goals of stopping catastrophic environmental destruction and improving well-being.

It would be nice to see some science fiction where people succeed at doing just that, not with futuristic tech, but with the tech and constraints we have today.

"Alia, have you ever tasted meat?"
"The synthetic type?"
"Yes, of course."
"Yes, for one birthday, my friends cooked some."
...
"My grandpa is sailing to the States for a company convention, he will be back for Easter. It's so relaxing... can't imagine when one hundred years ago people had to travel in airplanes without stretching their legs for eight hours. You can stretch your legs during all the weeks you spend in the ocean, you know."
...

Oh the plot twists!
Google Analytics 4 to replace Universal Analytics
A lot of people strongly disagree with my comment, but I stand by my opinion. I genuinely like almost all of Nolan's and Coppola's works.

The Godfather is absolutely timeless, and I totally get why people love it so much. I like it too, and feel Interstellar hits like the Godfather in that same class of movies that capture both the anxieties and nihilism of current culture.
I do wonder if it's Java as well, I've never been exposed to that ecosystem but it seems many bad (IMO at least) practices seem to originate from Java.

Another one I despise is the page object pattern for E2E tests. Basically introducing a pseudo-DSL tied to something that is ever changing. I like the Cypress approach of using app actions instead:

https://www.cypress.io/blog/2019/01/03/stop-using-page-objec...

I utilize this in my playwright tests since I found it very useful when writing cypress tests previously.
How do you partition the sample space in step 3 without knowing the bias of the coin?

If you squint right, I described a method in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30696269 for how to do just that. But I wonder whether you have a different method in mind?
> It's about the strongest evidence possible.

It's not as strong as the synthesis of all the other evidence, particularly: his actions and statements throughout life, none of which point towards him being a Nazi. That is stronger evidence than his ethnic identity.

With respect to Ron Unz, you might want to read that wikipedia page more carefully than a quick C-f; that guy is a big fan of Hitler and hating jews. The same synthesis of actions and statements that vindicate Zelensky will plainly damn Unz.
Saarland introduces computer science as a compulsory subject
I mean that’s the beauty of crypto, the future is so bright. Why is the outlook so good? I’ll be honest I see no good evidence that it will be a viable currency, it’s slow and power hungry and not to mention confusing. We have no shortage of hype and people relentlessly defending it though.
I used to do the same, often used to get weird looks from others, presumably thinking that I was going to cheat during the exam. I used to intentionally dispose of or put away the sheet in a way that it was seen to avoid suspicion.
dude, the youtube channel name is the same as his profile here. maybe he just uploaded it, but got it on telegram or whatever. it's not about how he found/made it. but the quality compared to OP.
The problem with a proxy server implementation is modern browsers (AFAIK) are unwilling to submit HTTPS requests in the clear to a proxy server rather than use CONNECT. There’s nothing about the protocol that would make that impossible or even inconvenient, browsers are just unwilling to do it. And I can see the reasoning, but if you actually want this to happen, like here, you’re stuck (or have to MITM yourself, which is its own can of worms).
'Economic growth' is a really slippery concept because the precise meaning of 'growth' matters a lot to the overall picture.

Growth can be steady-state or not - for example, the global biosphere 'grows' by about 100 gigatons of carbon per year due to photosynthesis, but also 'dies' by about the same amount, due to breakdown of organic matter to CO2 by insects, fungi etc. In contrast, biological succession on a volcanic island, from bare rock to a dense cover of rainforest, results in an accumalation of biomass until a new steady state is reached. That accumulation-phase growth is very different from the steady-state dynamic condition.

Economically, 'growth' (as used in the article) seems to refer to the accumulation-phase (*say, the accumulation of capital). Now if your capital-accumulation model is to chop down a forest, sell the wood, build housing, move in a farm and a town, and become an agricultural-industrial center operating under steady-state economic conditions (little capital accumulation, but lots of capital movement) - OK, eventually you run out of forest for your accumulation-of-capital model.

The thing is, humans can do perfectly well with the steady-state economic-ecological model, given that the total human population remains stable. Here, however, competition is a bit rougher - the success of one entity in a steady-state system means the decline of another, there are far fewer open horizons. Nevertheless an individual company can experience 'economic growth' in this situation (someone else gets 'economic death', aka loss of market share). Evolution comes into play here, so we'd hope that competition in a steady-state system would select for efficiency, quality, etc.

In contrast, doubling the human population could mean doubling the demand for goods and services. That would be accumulative growth, and economic growth is always the desirable good thing, certainly...? Accumulative growth on a finite planet is, obviously enough, not going to go on forever. The only point to consider is how close we are to reaching that limit, and what kind of average quality of life (including access to untouched wilderness) we'd like to enjoy.
The article seems to define genius by how socially popular the individual is?

But that's a terrible metric. Is the difference between Einstein and a cutting edge quantum physicist today marketing?

He might be right in his conjecture that one-on-one tutoring produces 'geniuses' but this article contains no evidence of it. I don't think it even contains evidence the top intellectuals are less common, just that they're less popular.
Dozens of homeless die in Seattle per year from ODs, cold, fights, etc. The general morale doesn't appear to be affected very much. On the other hand, it does seem to be affected by crime and 3rd-world conditions on the street... so, on the margins, death of a career criminal would improve general morale.
Tangentially (?) I would not underestimate the impact the manuals of various early computers had on young programmers.

I wore my Vic 20 manual out copying out programs from it while learning not only BASIC but some pretty fundamental stuff about computer architecture. It was so significant to me I had to buy a copy from eBAY decades later to keep on my shelf.
In France it's 12€ per person, or 18€ for "family" (5-6 people). That's quite a good deal with the music, even for just two people.
Giroux is a bit too left for me, but the prognosis and message for
hope in this video is spot-on in my opinion. [1]

According to this narrative we stopped making Einsteins because it's
simply no longer in the interests of the "elites" to have smart people
around. Education became a liability to those cheering for cybernetic
governance and social control media.

Similar explanations are proffered by John Taylor-Gatto, Sir Ken
Robinson, Noam Chomsky, and of course Paulo Friere.

While I don't fully agree with the ideologies of these thinkers,
frustratingly, from what I see inside higher education, everything is
designed to produce narrow-minded, uncritical, docile people who will
not ask too many questions or think too hard.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh-3_DIi5HM
Metaverse Explained
"If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't."

Why would this be shocking? The measure is per capita. I can see why it could lead to higher numbers within a small geographic area. But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?
Even in beta, how you present your work is as important or possibly more important than the "work" itself. (It's actually a significant part of the work.)

I've been involved with beta programs for other CAD tools and constantly give feedback to the Onshape team for their design and development of their app. I've worked at major design firms (IDEO, Pentagram, Lunar, etc) and have an ID background. I'm very enthusiastic about CAD and its creative uses. I'm part of what I understand your core audience to be.

I'm trying to give you constructive feedback that a GitHub link which dumps me into a directory is a huge turn off.

Go look at Shapr3D [1], Gravity Sketch [2], or even FreeCAD [3]. Look at how they have calls to action, download links and key benefits shown visually in 2 seconds.

[1] https://www.shapr3d.com

[2] https://www.gravitysketch.com

[3] https://www.freecadweb.org
There are two reasons at least for contimuing growth. The first is to increase wealth, so we have more mansions, more yachts, more billionaires, more greed, more stuff. The second is to alleviate poverty. Clearly Amy continued growth will run into resource limits eventually. We'll run out of fuels, exotic metals, fresh water, processing power, and cooling ability, eventually. But the limit to decreasing poverty is just -- no poverty. And that is in theory achievable. We can reduce the amount of hungry and unhomed people to near zero without running out of resources, at least provided population levels plateau. Achieving that goal would make it easier for us to re-examine the need for growth of the first kind.
Grovara Named CB Insights Top Most Promising Companies
I find it funny that the rule changes were years in the making, but nobody (or at least it seems like nobody) predicted the "porpoising" issues.
> Universal Analytics was built for a generation of online measurement that was anchored in the desktop web, independent sessions and more easily observable data from cookies. This measurement methodology is quickly becoming obsolete.

Good riddance, but also, it seems like we'll be in a constant battle with privacy-invading trackers across apps, web, and 'smart' appliances.

There are mentions about better privacy controls, and not storing user IPs, but IP addresses haven't been as useful for the past few years.

It seems the biggest changes will be to appease businesses who've been dropping out of the Google Analytics ecosystem due to privacy laws in many countries/states.

> All standard Universal Analytics properties will stop processing new hits on July 1, 2023, and 360 Universal Analytics properties will stop processing new hits on October 1, 2023.

It looks like this is a forced upgrade, with a little over a year to move.
That co-equal nonsense is Nixon era propaganda from when he was gearing up to fight impeachment.

The fact that Congress buys into it and sells the merch because it is made up of people who don’t want to actually do their job is just another of a long list of disappointments that Congress churns out on the regular, but to put this in perspective: by the letter of the Constitution only Congress can impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches. They are not co-equal, they are supreme and are the Article I branch for a good reason.
"thier guy" You are studiously avoiding mentioning that this was the guy before the guy before Zelensky. Deceptive as always. Zelensky was elected in 2019, five years later. Are you even going to talk about that at all?
> Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position.

I think this is exactly the opposite of the takeaway. Republicans have been promoting the idea that Democrats are weak on crime and their city's are overrun with murders. They have been running on this message since at least Reagan in the 80s. This challenges that existing position with actual data about states.

It might not be as deep as you like, but it certainly challenges the existing narrative (that's why you see so many people upset in the comments).
wow interesting to know. I have a PS4 from 2014 gathering dust somewhere...
I can't wait until the new Kinesis Advantage 360 is out. I'm hoping it's much quieter than this iteration.

https://kinesis-ergo.com/keyboards/advantage360/
Microsoft announces progress on topological qubit
Now I'm curious. Do you have a link for the geo-ip unreliability by any chance?
> Hmmm. How did you “find” this?

To be clear: the video is not mine. I simply uploaded it to youtube as an unlisted video to support my point. This original video was posted on Feb 28th to one of telegram channels I'm subbed to. The channel is https://t.me/wildwildhack which is a channel for "wild wild hack" hackathon organized by the reface.ai guys.
On the archival (rather than authoring) side, the usual format is WARC[1], preserving the complete content and timing of all HTTP requests and responses, but the tooling is clunky to put it mildly.

[1] https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/
Yeah, I knew this article wasn't for me when I read the first sentence.

Genius is so widespread these days that it's almost pedestrian. It's just way less concentrated and elite than it used to be - which makes its findings harder to disseminate.
Minor application:

In Dungeons and Dragons, a challenge is typically resolved by taking some number that's a difference between difficulty of the challenge and your character's skill, and comparing it to the roll of a twenty sided die. (Higher is better for you.)

Some dungeons and dragons game masters sometimes can't decide how hard to make a challenge. So they roll one die to set a random challenge, and then proceed as normal with a second die roll.

With the same logic as in your comment above, I think you should be able to show that this 'randomized challenged' behaves exactly the same as a challenge of difficulty 10?
A New E-Bike Drive System Ditches the Classic Chain Design
I've got plenty of theories but nothing solid. Einstein and the other Big Name Scientists at the time seemed to be part of a small intellectual elite; it feels like this group of intellectuals has since then increased, but since the big discoveries had already been made, they spend their time iterating on them. Similar discoveries made back then about the nature of reality and physics were all made around that time, a good hundred years ago.

But I think that, quite likely, that was it. There's no new Major Discovery that could propel one scientist into fame to be made anymore. At best we have e.g. Stephen Hawking who introduced some new concepts about space (building on top of e.g. Einstein) and who made theoretical physics more accessible to the masses. Or Oppenheimer who is credited (although by a long shot not the "inventor") with nukes.

The other part is that Einstein and co - at least, reading their biography - were part of the elite, a small group of people, aristocrats, rich folk, who didn't have to work but could instead attend universities wherever they wanted, take long walks in the park to talk and think about the sciences, write long letters to colleagues, etc - people for who intellectual pursuits was what they could spend all their energy on. But, this is hindsight and idealisation based on biographies and surviving letters, so take that with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I think there's plenty of Einsteins out there, but their work is in smaller, less revolutionary increments.

That said, as a society we need to make sure there is enough room for intellectuals, that is, provide funding and livelihoods for them and universities they belong to, and provide budgets for the projects to put their theories into practice, e.g. nuclear fusion, the Large Hadron Collider, the James Webb space telescope, etc.
The cable/connector does indeed look interesting, if easily available ... possibly with more pins... I wish they had more details, from the thumbnail[0] they posted of the board edge PCB footprint, I don't see how it could be reversible... The short finger (presumably VDD) would need to be on opposing sides top and bottom, and it's always on the right. Or is my thinking messed up?

[0]: https://microsoft.github.io/jacdac-docs/overview/connectorca...
When Einstein proposed General Relativity it could be tested by nothing more complex than a camera. If anyone comes up with a theory of physics to explain further what we observe about the world the test usually entails a multi trillion dollar machine, a team of thousands of scientists and decades of engineering to bring about a test. Usually these things require novel engineering and for environments where we have no experience. Just look at the JWST. Even then the theories being tested by the JWST are predictions traceable to Einstein. I think we need a better "standard candle" than Einstein to go by. We have plenty of very clever people working on hard problems and coming up with clever solutions. Einstein also wasn't infallible. He's treated like a singular genius that erred in no thing. Einstein rejected Plate Tectonics just to name one scientific area where he managed to blunder badly.