skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The big problem is knowing all the places which could be displaying incorrectly when you make a change. This is a fundamental design issue with the cascade: unbounded silent failure because rule activation is implicit.

In addition, there is the difficulty of inspecting those sites which you can identify to verify that display is correct, which is hard to achieve programmatically.
Show HN: Node CLI to send or recieve UDP packages (in Spanish)
Nowadays it's really easy to check on mac + windows, as the built in stuff is "good enough", particularly if you use the OSes default browser (Safari and edge respectively).

I realise that doesn't help Linux/BSD users.
> until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics

Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop".

We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all.

I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.
It would probably be some very large number backed by a theory like "this violation has deprived the plaintiff of their ability to fully control the disposition of their private information and activities, thereby creating permanent direct and indirect risks whose damages to the plaintiff's income, income potential, business, reputation, and family are limited only by the malevolent collective imagination of an unbounded pool of individual, institutional, or governmental adversaries."
No, people in the US call folks who embrace fascist policies and ideals Nazis. Because, you know, Nazis and fascism go hand-in-hand.

Not all Republicans are fascists, but there's far more overlap there than in any other major US political party.
What is his point? It just reads as blame-shifting. Introduction of an unidiomatic feature into the standard for a particular use case is an acknowledgment of deficiency or incompleteness of the whole standard.
Chapterhouse was very decent, the whole series with ups and downs are works of art. Sad that Herbert died before closing the cycle.
Really cool idea! And I love how fast the site is. I wish the filters were a bit better so I could search for a couch of a certain width or material. Do you expect people to first find a piece of furniture they like on another website then come to spoken.io to make sure they get the best price?
But nobody is saying that accessible entrances should only be used for disabled persons and nothing else.

Here, the author is asserting that there is only one valid use case of !important, and that it shouldn’t be used in the general case. If it shouldn’t be used generally, having a general name is bad design.
LWN – Security Updates – Posted March-21-2022 13:52 UTC
That to me is a reason to like the company rather than not... Let's see where you stand once your opinions are on the chopping block
There are many great Power mnemonics. VSX introduced one nearly as good, xxlxor (which, quite reasonably, is a logical XOR between VSX registers/FPRs). It's delightful to try to even pronounce.

The best part is that eieio's derivation is totally plausibly serious from its stated function. (Remember, IBM doesn't have a corporate sense of humour.) It's also an easy, fairly lightweight speculation barrier apart from its official usage.
Yes. I have been doing that for quite some time.
Early in my career I took a job at Boeing working on spacecraft simulation tools written in Ada. When I asked I was told by the other folks on the team that they had no ability to debug the system (i.e., they did debugging via print statements).

For background, our dev environments consisted of Windows PCs which we used to ssh (using putty, exceed, etc) into a SPARC/Solaris machine to do all of our actual work. Our tools consisted of vi (not vim), clearcase, and whatever other command line tools were available (good luck asking for anything new to be installed).

At some point, I guess somebody installed GNU tools on the solaris machine because I managed to find gdb while rooting around... which I'd never used before - so I set about learning. It proved to be a huge help. I tried to show it to some of the other engineers, but few seemed interested.
> Even decoherence researchers agree that docoherence theory does not do this

Yes, but they are wrong. And it's not hard to see that they are wrong.

The crux of the argument is that the state predicted by QM:

|S1>|A1>|O1>|E1> + |S2>|A2>|O2>|E2>

where S is the system being measured, A is the measurement apparatus, O is the observer, and E is the environment, is not what is observed. What is observed is either:

|S1>|A1>|O1>|E1>

or

|S2>|A2>|O2>|E2>

neither of which is the predicted state above. Except that it is because |S1>|A1>|O1>|E1> is what is predicted to be observed by an observer in state |O1> and |S2>|A2>|O2>|E2> is what is predicted to be observed by an observer in state |O2>. It is not that the prediction is wrong, it is that you, a classical observer, are not sufficiently omniscient to see both observations. You can only see one or the other. And this too can be explained, though by quantum information theory rather than decoherence theory. In order to be a classical observer it is necessary to be able to copy (classical) information. The only way to do that is to discard some of the (quantum) information contained in the wave function. Being non-omniscient (i.e. being unable to directly observe a superposition) is a necessary precondition of being a classical observer.
And don’t forget the fact that is a direct mutation of the early strain of the virus, instead of the other variations that mutated from the previous one.

Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.
This sounds like a good contender for the cause of human extinction.
Looking forward to biotech companies doing this anyways, having a good number of people die due to allergic reactions, and then society shrugging and going 'but it's for the greater good, and if you don't agree you're a conspiracy theorist'.
is this generated by ai?
Most heating heat pumps I've seen can ramp up/down as demand changes.

Also central heat pumps (for heating) aren't so common, most are mini-split types with each room separate, or at least a highly variable central compressor than can run on low.
The Google way: Force the rest of the world adjust to your new "cool thing", and then kill it because it wasn't that great.
That's been the case for 4 years now, none of these fines have occurred.

The largest fines so far have been approaching 9 figures, far more than the "couple of million" in the comment I replied to above.

That's not pocket change even for a multinational and of course there has to be reasonable due process before handing out that kind of penalty. If anything I'd say the fact that several eight-figure penalties have already been handed down is reassuring.

I have the feeling that nobody actually wants to enforce this

I'm genuinely curious about how you formed that impression. Here in the UK our data protection regulators have been fairly consistent in their public views on these issues under multiple Information Commissioners now and have handed down some significant penalties, so I don't really buy the conspiracy theories about corruption and so on.

Worse: in the UK, there's been news about actually weakening the GDPR, based on the Culture Secretary being stupid (or having financial incentives for doing so) and actually believing the tech industry's vilification of the GDPR.

As someone who is both a strong proponent of privacy safeguards and involved in running businesses that actually have to comply with the GDPR, I have very mixed feelings about this.

On one hand I don't like the idea of weakening important privacy protections and I have no faith whatsoever in the competence of the current government here to understand the technical or social implications of these policies.

On the other hand I also don't think much of the GDPR as written. It's full of ambiguity and it is unnecessarily difficult for a good actor to comply with it, particularly smaller organisations that don't have dedicated staff to deal with this kind of admin and also don't have any interest in doing things with personal data that most of us here probably wouldn't like. People like to focus on a tiny number of points that we'd probably agree are positive steps or at least well-intentioned, but the GDPR is roughly a hundred pages long and that's before you include supporting materials like official guidance on interpretation from all the different regulators. There are a lot of small and a few big problems in the rest of those pages once you look past the headlines. Not coincidentally those areas also tend to leave loopholes that some bad actors are relying on to escape the trap.
Dogs even developed facial muscles to communicate with human expressions.
Can we be friends? hn@randallb.com
> So someone would have to actively lie to get an "algorithm" and they'd have to know they want it.

You mean like... many, many kids do when they sign up for any internet account, because they know their options will be restricted if they don't?

Hell, I did it when I was 12 in the early 2000s, I guarantee children who grew up in the social media age definitely do it all the time. It's not that they "want the algorithm" explicitly, they just don't want the restrictions that they know come with telling a website "I am a child".
"[Python-Dev] Should set objects maintain insertion order too?" https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/... :

> Are there URIs for Big-O notation that could be added as e.g. structured attributes in docstrings or annotations?

Looks like docutils supports bibliographic fields and a `metadata` directive:
https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/directives.html...

RST field lists: https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtex...

`sphinx-apidoc -M`: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/man/sphinx-apidoc.html

sphinx-contrib/apidoc re-runs sphinx-apidoc on every build to generate the doc stubs:
https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/apidoc

awesome-sphinxdoc: https://github.com/yoloseem/awesome-sphinxdoc

Requirements traceability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_traceability

Test coverage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage

...

Someday I'd like to be able to express RDF triples in RST; wherein the preceding heading and/or a specific attribute specify the subject URI and then attr/value pairs are predicate/objects. IDK if that's even necessary for this application where you'd have the dotted-path of the __doc__ string to imply the subject URI?

: https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1384081580218408962 :

How to express #LinkedData in
- [ ] LaTeX
- [x] HTML: RDFa, JSON-LD, Microdata
- [ ] YAML: YAML-LD
- [ ] Markdown: MyST-Markdown for executablebooks/jupyter-book (Sphinx roles and directives)

- [ ] reStructuredText (docutils)
I shared this with some friends on Slack, and the response was "another price aggregator, but for furniture? Okay..."

When you explained the problem in your HN post description, I got really excited about the product. But, I don't see that same story communicated on your website anywhere. I'm sure you've thought about this, but: tell users what you are doing differently on the website.
The book on the taboo against knowing who you are by Alan Watts. It has changed my life for sure, I am actually still tripping for the last of ten years or so after reading it. Is it for the better? I don't know it yet.
This is a terrible article full of outright falsehoods with no examples.

It seems like they just quoted a bunch of older "get off my lawn" photographers who either don't know how to use the latest iPhones or haven't even tried them.

Pretty much everything they're talking about is either outright wrong, or it's behavior that can be turned off in the settings or influenced in the camera app, or just go use an alternate app.

Some of the complaints in the article are as simple as the person complaining doesn't know how to control exposure compensation or automatic exposure lock on the iPhone. Both of these are things that have not changed in a long time on the iPhone. Portrait mode is imperfect for sure, but the author doesn't seem to understand that a large aperture on a traditional camera is also liable to produce weird effects in a picture and will most certainly do things like make things in the background disappear. Using that wisely separates a good photographer from a bad one.

There is a RAW mode for people who are complaining about that. Maybe it's not "RAW enough" but the same thing has happened in the DSLR/MILC world for a while too. Sony was doing processing on their RAW files a long time ago.

Some of the stuff going on with DLSRs/MILC is targeted very heavily at spec sheet chasers these days and far less so artistic/working photographers. It's gotten a bit out of hand lately. I have a bunch of pro level photo gear and a lot of it has lost a lot of fun over the last 10 years.. the smartphone photography has gotten a lot more interesting. I've printed 60" wide photos on one of my cameras and it's 10 years old now. Zero reason for me to upgrade it for any realistic improvement in megapixels and the other things the camera companies are selling, for which they want $4000. Likewise ultra expensive new lenses which improve performance in the corner of the frame but weigh 2x as much as what I have already. The spec chasers love all this stuff to death but if the subject of the photo isn't in the corner no viewer cares, and not many quality compositions focus on the corners. And it's certainly not worth upgrading a $1000 lens to a $2000-3000 lens. Even MILC is in many ways a sideways move and often focuses on the same stuff smartphones are doing.

The 3 lens smartphones have gotten really really compelling for anyone who really thinks about how they shoot. If you're not chasing printing big prints you can take the smartphone and get the same results as having to take an entire bag of expensive camera gear that cost you thousands.

The biggest weakness of the smartphones is flash & external lighting.. but there have been hacks & add on devices to control external flashes for quite a while now too. As in years. A lot of that is the same kind of stuff you used to have to do with "Pro" photo gear.

No matter what the camera is someone will always complain about the camera being the cause of their bad photography. It is almost never the camera's fault. It is almost always a problem between the floor and the shutter button. Be a maker not a taker, etc..
Change in movement speed, where movement speed is based on animation frame

Notice how the zerglings don't smoothly move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOMzUw2GSSk&t=144s
All your observations are spot-on. Kudos! You have understood this space much better than most software developers ever will :)

And yes - the exhortation in my article was essentially for RPA developers to max out on the use of the text-based script editor.
Wasmer and Trademarks
It would only take one example to disprove the theory, but finding that example is probably going to be somewhat difficult, since you'd need to establish that the increase in minimum wage caused the increase in employment. In the examples you give, maybe employment went up because those countries increased the minimum wage, or maybe it would have gone up anyway as those countries recovered from the financial crisis. Or maybe some third factor caused the increase. Or, if unemployment was unusually high during the crisis, it could be pure reversion to the mean.
20 years ago when I was going to school in Winneshiek county, the average winter temperature was considered to be 19F. Lots of -50F nights. About every other year there was at least one story of someone freezing to death when their car broke down, etc.
I went to a state school, going to an Ivy was never in the realm of possibility for me. But I do have friends from said state school that went on to grad school programs at MIT.

From my perspective they seemed to have gotten the best of both worlds.

A cheap but solid education and network at a very good state school where they could be top of the class among small fish rather than middle of the pack among big fish, and then a world class 4-6 year grad school research program that launched them into the upper echelons of the tech industry. They essentially beat the game.

A lot of good advice ITT already, so I'll just deposit my 2c:

1. If you're good enough to get accepted, you're probably going to be successful regardless of the path you choose.

2. If you go grad school route, that $180k is going to hang over you for the next 10 years, have a plan to service the interest.

3. You can probably enter the industry making $200k/yr minimum.

4. FOMO and regret are powerful but not fatal, status games entails their own burdens too.

5. It's really really hard to plan years in advance, especially when you're young. The thing you want today, you might not want tomorrow. The world will change and you will change, thus altering the calculus of desire. The advice I was given that served me well was make plans that maximize opportunity, rather than only focusing on creating linear paths to singular opportunities themselves. For ex. if MIT opens 10x more doors than Z, I'd opt for MIT, but if it's only say 2x I may lean towards Z.

6. Follow your heart, and good luck :)
> Any society or segment of any society that isn't producing average 120 IQ babies with superior sensory perception, physical strength, dexterity, and so forth

Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
I understand that a code editor is necessarily a little bit bloated.

But my comment was more about the binary size.

I'm very much not a fan of this static compiled apps even I understand that from the developers standpoint they're nice. But properly packaging such a thing is usually more involved as I would be if is would be modular from the get go.

AppImages are a bit better as they're an "overlayed" bundle but still the usual problems remain.

How big would it be if it would use the dynamic libs provided by an distribution actually? I guess not bigger than Kate. :-)
Especially when you make half of the same mistakes every time. No argument here.
These folks don't have the money to pay their electricity bills. What makes you think they have the money to move?
The word "currently" serves the same function as "yet" here, doesn't it?
The whole topic sounds very risky to me indeed but they seemed to have been very careful with their choice of virus:

"Although the evolutionary factors underlying CMV’s [cytomegalovirus] species-specificity are not entirely known, there has never been a documented case in the wild or in a laboratory of a successful cross-species CMV infection."
Ah, yes. I agree that this type of search currently falls flat. We are gathering product specs to be able run searches by dimensions, style, material, color, etc. shortly. I want a table that both looks beautiful and fits into the space I have in my apartment.
Netflix to Crack Down on Password Sharing
The Evolving Quest for a Grand Unified Theory of Mathematics
> It doesn't help that the GDPR is only really simple if you don't abuse personal data.

I'm not sure how helpful this criterion is; there exists a large gray area in what people consider to be "abuse". For instance, suppose that an EU-based business hotlinks an image from a U.S.-based website (or a website hosted on a U.S. CDN, or a website operated by a business owned by a U.S. corporation). Then that business is at risk of being fined, since it has no way of proving that the target website does not log IP addresses (e.g., for some DoS-protection suite), and if it does, the U.S. government could gain access to those IP addresses, which are defined as protected personal information.

In this scenario, the EU-based business isn't necessarily doing anything nefarious like selling data to advertisers, and it could even be refraining from storing any data at all. Likewise, a U.S.-based website that stores only connection logs isn't necessarily doing nefarious things with those. But the former business is still at risk of being fined, since IP addresses have been placed under the umbrella of protected personal information.

In the discussion a while back of the Google IP-address fine, I saw two talking points come up repeatedly: that there would have been no issue if Google weren't doing nefarious tracking of IP addresses, and that the EU operator must have known that IP addresses are radioactive to store or transmit but chose to do so anyway. AFAICT, the first is inaccurate, since any persistent storage of IP addresses by U.S. operators is problematic. And the second, I think, illustrates the real tension here: between privacy maximalists who prefer the least possible amount of data to be stored in all circumstances, regardless of the cost, and everyday server operators who fear that using the default settings on their software or using seemingly-trivial functionality could be introducing legal liability.

I'm still not sure myself about the relative merits of the two viewpoints, but much more could be done to assist the latter group in following best practices, instead of immediately demonizing them as nefarious loophole finders. (Not to say that nefarious operators don't exist, of course, but I suspect that their prevelance is very easily overstated.)
I think that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa,_Louisiana based on the URL :)

Climate data is usually by city, since (say) Sioux City and Cedar Rapids may have totally different climates.
I read his point being that !important used for anything but the original intent is "code smell", and I'm fully behind that. He doesn't imply that you mustn't use it for anything but its designed purpose, I'm sure he is enough of an engineer to know that sometimes you cannot stick to your ideals. He's probably well aware that some people have to rely on frameworks which already use !important, so they have to work around that by using !important as well. None of that contradicts what he says, but it's still a misuse of the feature.
> The alternative is for the company to eat the cost of payment enforcement, and raise the price of everyone's service a little bit

Seems moral to me. As a community member, I'm happy to play a bit to ensure those unable to pay don't freeze in the winter

Signed,

-Texan who was without power during a major cold snap and wonders why the "independent" electric grid isn't an active priority
What would you recommend instead of CSS?
"Understanding Exposure" is good on the absolute basics. However I don't remember if it covers more philosophical stuff like "zoom with your feet", and it probably won't help someone who just straight up keeps forgetting to take off / put on a filter.
The auto compete in xcode has to be the worst I've ever used. Hitting tab autocompletes just one word. Even if it's the only option! It's infuriatingly bad. It's like no one at Apple uses it.
I can't view this tweet. It seems this guy made his account private.