skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see a lot of people saying why not to have comments, and they are all fair things to say. But in counterpoint I'll say that sometimes I send a technical correction, or other such friendly remark, that I think the blogger gains by.

But of course I agree that the great majority of comments that you see are very discouraging.
> But all along, this person's preference is Democrat > Republican > Independent.

That's a great point, thank you. I should have tried to describe a more subtle effect where someone sees the policies of the far left candidate and it taints their view of the Democrats, who they now view with suspicion, fearing the Democrats might secretly support the same extreme policies. Alternatively, a Republican voter might see the Overton window shift and consider the Democrats a more centrist party, and so drop their support for the Republicans.

The problem is, these parties (and candidates) aren't spherical cows in a vacuum, and neither are voters. Voters have imperfect information and have to try to make predictions about which politicians are lying, and what direction the mood of the country is moving; so the addition of another party into an electoral contest can quite reasonably cause someone to change how they view the existing parties and even flip their support.
Show HN: Automatically split long className attributes in JSX code
> The amount of waste is staggering. Working on the right thing is way more than a 10x multiplier.

How much of that waste would you attribute to 1x programmers and how much would you attribute to 0x managers?
You're definitely not wrong. I think Supabase will get there ultimately. But being a startup and presumably a small team, I think it's ok for them to lean on "Supabase is basically postgres as a service so postgres docs can fill the void for now".

And just for the record I'm not affiliated with Supabase, I just use it on a side project and quite like it.
I saw an employee at a hardware store yesterday with a full sized iPhone strapped to his wrist like a watch. It's just such a convenient place for information that people are going to keep using it, whether we design products for that or not. I bet that people keep using virtual watches on their wrists in AR.
What advantages does this offer over self hosted PeerTube?
> What they should use is the number of cases tax workers can deal with.

I'm curious about this and not completely sure I understand what it would look like in an example. Would you be willing to expand on the point?
> MirageOS is - similar to the latest OCaml release - only using a single CPU core.

Thanks. Is that going to change now that OCaml is finally getting proper multicore support?

>> Also I would say there are reasons for isolation beyond memory safety.
>Would you mind to elaborate which reasons you are thinking of?

Memory safety in a sense protects the integrity of the 'runtime', but only partially help to protect business level integrity. A task might still tricked (by mistake or malice) to access objects it is not supposed to. I'm sure that OCaml has enough abstractions to help prevent that, but full isolation of tasks is a blunt and effective tool.
To go further, any competition to Google and Apple are killed in the cradle by developers refusing to support their platform.
There's a lot more to it than just that.

A couple of years ago, the New York Times ran an interesting article where someone tried to live an ordinary day without interacting in any way with Google. The result was that it simply wasn't possible.
In Europe, the legislation to look at would be

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

Specifically, article 4 covers termination of service, and the rules around this.

It seems Google and other platform providers have no interest in following these rules though.
Just the rhythm of the algorithm baby!
Knowledge doesn't make you productive. Wisdom does. Wisdom applies your knowledge.

That usually requires you to realize that productivity is a trap. That doing more is a fundamentally flawed idea because you will always have more to do. Rather, you should aim to do more with less, which is better idealized as being effective or efficient.

The best ways to 10x that? Four old ideas:

1. Have the courage to try something new.
2. Find the right amount of doing it.
3. Research new techniques or tricks.
4. Use your judgement whether you can apply it to your current ability.
5. Repeat
UL94-V0 polycarbonate sheet or fish paper. Heatsink could easily get over the glass temp of common 3D printing materials like PLA or PETG.
Man, NixOS would probably be a lot more useful if people didn't have to learn a whole new goddamned language to use it. I realize making some kind of discoverable and sane interface to the this is probably not trivial, but is it really so impossibly difficult that no one involved with the project wants to do it?
Preprint means that it has not been peer reviewed. It is likely in submission to various journals, where a few people in the field (hopefully peers in the field!) will discuss the edge cases of the study. In my experience this ranges from a rival lab you get along with giving you shit for not checking something out, to a lab that has no idea what genes are in a zebrafish accusing you that the gene you are studying does not exist in zebrafish.

Note: this happened to me, and there is google maps for zebrafish genes, this is easy: https://zfin.org/search?category=&q=SHC

You never know what kind of questions they might ask! Papers do in fact get rejected for shoddy work, or get sent to revision. Often it's not a huge problem, maybe fix a figure, double check some other work, or refer you to someone else's study that contradicts your claim. If you're not a fraud, you generally bring your strongest case, so the only tuning needed is details.

That being said, peer review doesn't always work, as there are cases of publishing fraud.

However, for labs that get exceptional scoops you can bet people are going to try to replicate it and if it turns out it doesn't work you've got some explaining to do. (Your academic reputation is now on the line.)

Here's a short list of notes on retractions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retractions_in_academic_publis...

In my career (10y), I personally witnessed two people immolate their careers over publishing papers that didn't work or stole results from someone else.

Fun retraction watch site here: https://retractionwatch.com

To directly answer your questions:

Mice (and to a greater extent, animal models) are the current standard for advancing studies in biology. Are there problems with mouse models? Sure. Is there currently a better alternative? No.

Are preprints bad? No. It used to be there was no such thing as a preprint, you submitted your work to a journal and that was that. Accept or reject. You might have sent the preprint version to people in your field you were collaborating with, or some deconstructed version to verify parts of your work. Now with arxiv style publishing, it's up to the community at large to figure out what's what. I'm not saying one or the other is better. Us biodorks are catching up to physics people. However, anyone can publish to arxiv, including kooks.

Can preprints be bad? Yes. This work has no scrutiny to its claims by anyone outside of the authors, so for laypeople not in the field we don't have a good insight as to make heads or tails of these claims. Could you look it all up? Of course! Contrast that to someone in the field that might say on sight: "Yeah, Nichols' work has been pretty out there" or "That gene doesn't work the same way in zebrafish." :D

Mice are uncontroversial. Preprints are uncontroversial. I don't think I'd put money on either. I would be more interested to see follow up work than change the animal model.

PS: Wow, I had good coffee this morning!
I think you've misunderstood it.

Let's design a system that allows us to run virtual computers on a single hardware platform. In some part of this system we need to map real hardware addresses to virtual ones in order to isolate the different virtual computers.

Now you might need a way to take a real, logical address to a memory location on this machine and get a virtual address. You might have to run this system on many different hardware platforms and you only know the platforms you will run on today (or the next few months). Almost without thinking about it you might choose to use a virtual method on a class to define a function signature for this operation. That way folks implementing this system for different hardware platforms can create a sub-class and fill in a concrete definition of the virtual method. Now users of the system can translate an address and don't have to think about the underlying hardware platform they're running on! Abstraction!

Only it's not an abstraction.

If you attempt to formalize what it means to map a hardware address to the virtual address you will find it quite difficult because your interface provides no information about hardware addresses. In other words the virtual method does not put in all of the details of the concrete implementation and so we cannot maintain an invariant in our specifications that would ensure that we only translate valid addresses, or that translation is deterministic -- properties that would be important for users of the abstraction to truly be able to ignore the underlying complex domain. If we could write such a specification for this virtual method though, it would be very complicated, and that is a good sign this is not a good abstraction.

Abstractions are often separate from the code because they're much more general than a single program. If we came up with a better abstraction in a formal logic like separation logic or using Hoare logic -- we might be able to prove that the properties we care about hold and therefore any program that implements this specification will have the same properties. And there might be several such programs!

So what industry programmers are often saying when they are talking about "abstraction" is "indirection and vagueness." What this article is trying to show is that we can give precise definitions to our abstractions so that we can build new _semantic_ layers that have precise meaning: when I translate a hardware address I get a valid, deterministic virtual address and nothing else.
Last year I wrote a blog post about this exact question: Who watches the watchers?

The general takeaway is that you run a minimal prometheus/alertmanager setup that only scrapes the agents, then use a dead man switch-like system to ensure this pipeline keeps working.

Link: https://grafana.com/blog/2021/04/08/how-we-use-metamonitorin...
How long until working for Google has the same stigma as working for Facebook? Doing it for the money while la-la-la plugging your ears about what you're creating. It already seems like the aspirational aspect of wanting to join Google has mostly been replaced by the greedy desire for FAANG money.
While I do not foresee this being adopted in the US I won't put it past lobbyists to try. Maybe they are already trying? I personally would never go for this. Cash in my pocket can't be "disabled" individually. In fact I am seeing a transition to targeted risks in many places. Amazon destroying small local stores facilitating the ability to disable someone's purchasing capabilities or limiting what one person may buy. As a side note, porch pirates are becoming a real nuisance for local authorities. Network connected cars can be remotely tracked, disabled or bricked. Smart homes that can monitor an individual. Smart phones tracking individuals.

I don't think I could fully embrace the Amish way of life but I suspect my local community mostly farmers and ranchers could implement a barter system if we had to. Some of this already exists. We could be self sufficient for things like food, basic repairs, transportation via horses. I am personally not opposed to giving up some luxuries like internet and online shopping if it came to that. I realize some people born into these things perceive them as absolutely mandatory but I did just fine without them for a big part of my life. In the last several months I have not needed to travel more than 16 miles from home. I suppose I could stock up on e-bike parts and solar panels then fall back to horses. Come to think of it, we could build a local warehouse business that stocks up on things not made locally then sell them locally using cash or maybe even implementing a Craigslist-Style barter system over Lo-Rad.

Am I alone on HN in thinking this way? I know I am not alone in my local community, but I am curious how many on HN have thought about this.
Before saying anything else: I’m sorry OP. This is miserable to deal with and I know you’re probably very upset right now.

On the other hand- at every company I’ve worked at, this is why there’s clear onboarding and off boarding policies. Yes- if you have someone on your developer account violating terms of service, they’ll shut down the account. No, it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t you personally.

To put this differently: if you had a bank account shared between your developers, and someone who left the company started using it for money laundering, the entire account would be shut down and you would not be getting that money back. In fact, you might even be investigated by authorities for money laundering since it ran through your account.

As someone who works in FinTech, we deal with tons of people just trying to steal / defraud others on a daily basis, and we’re required but governments across the world to be on the lookout for people doing “fraudy” things and terminate their accounts ASAP. If we just said “oh, it’s fine, you’re not in trouble because your (insert X relative here) was the bad person, not you,” then social engineering fraud would be rampant everywhere.

To me, the Google situation is identical to the bank situation. There’s not a good way to prove the bad account shouldn’t be associated with your Play store account. This is why you have to be diligent about who has access to these things.
> the data structures that functions act on are the real abstractions

I think type level functions, like Functor or Monad, also qualify as abstractions.
Show HN: Dstack – Train models and manage data effortlessly
SO people that prefer the office get to ruin it for those that don't?
Update: So I discovered numerous services were sending data directly to Facebook, using some form of hashed identifier, presumably a hash of my contact info.

The two big ones being Amazon and Uber.

Anyway I've decided to switch to a dumb phone in the near future and just stop using the internet once I've found offline replacements for everything I currently use the internet for.

It's just not worth it anymore.
A challenge with coworking spaces can be that there's much less corporate privacy. Some companies don't care but others do.
> I've become more and more uncomfortable with the word "entropy" as used in cryptography.

I don't like the word either. On the other hand, the meaning in the kernel seems clear: with a threat model of the attacker, it's the amount of bits that could be generated from internal state that are believed to be random, i.e. not predictable by the attacker.

> The word "random" has always been problematic. I try to use "unpredictable" instead, because I have half a clue what that word means.

Yes, "random" has many meanings. Sometimes it means simply that variable has non-repeating values with few desired statistical properties. This is not enough in cryptography, where we care about the attacker, so random there is much more demanding.

If a bit stream is looking unpredictable, but is known to be actually produced purely algorithmically, it is then not called random, but pseudo-random, because in principle, with enough knowledge of internal state, it can be predicted.

> I think "entropy" is used to mean "unpredictable in principle", which would exclude chaotic processes like CPU jitter.

"In principle" is too strong and vague. We don't have a way to test and verify a source is unpredictable in principle. We can only pronounce it based on current state of knowledge. In practice, the criterion is always "unpredictable in practice". A number source like CPU jitter may be declared unpredictable in practice. It is a decision of the implementor.

> Chaotic processes like the weather are predictable in principle; but they are so complex that in practice they are unpredictable.

Chaotic processes like weather are theoretical continuous processes, i.e. whose description is based on real numbers. We can measure such numbers only with unknown non-zero error, which makes predictions have errors too, which makes fine enough details of these processes unpredictable. There is nothing qualitatively better in unpredictability that quantum phenomena bring here. Classical thermal noise is already unpredictable.

> The Intel HWRNG depends on chaos - the jitter in gate propagation times. I'd settle for that, if it weren't for the fact that the raw chaos from the process isn't available for inspection - you can only see the result of obfuscating it using AES. How much bias is there in the raw bitstream from the unencrypted HWRNG output? I have no way of finding out.

How do they obfuscate it using AES? Maybe the AES obfuscation could be reversed?

> Entropy accounting in the Linux RNG seems to be somewhere between heuristics and guesswork. It seems to be awfully complicated, given that it comes down to finger-in-the-air estimates.

This seems to be the state of the things. Kernel programmers are constantly dabbling in RNG science which they shouldn't - they end up changing kernel RNG system design and breaking stuff. I don't expect kernel to provide high quality RNG, I expect it to boot and get out of my way.
3He can be produced, as you say, by storing the tritium and waiting for it to decay.

Making the tritium requires another fusion or fission reactor, in which case there is no point in trying to develop a 3He fusion reactor, because it will be advantageous only if it can replace the fission reactors and the "dirty" fusion reactors.

If those are still needed to produce the nuclear fuel, nothing is gained by using 3He.

If there would have existed a natural source of sufficient 3He, then things would have been very different and the deuterium-3He fusion would have been the top priority in fusion research.

A much more likely use of 3He is inside the so-called tritium-suppressed deuterium-deuterium fusion reactors.

The deuterium-deuterium reactions produce both tritium and 3He. If the tritium is removed continuously from the fusion reactor, then it is stored for a long enough time until it decays into 3He, and then it is fed back into the fusion reactor, that fusion reactor would use only deuterium as primary input fuel and because it will fuse internally larger quantities of 3He than of tritium, it will produce a flux of neutrons significantly lower than a standard deuterium-deuterium fusion reactor, even if not so low as a reactor that could use 3He as a primary input fuel.

This idea is promising, but the conditions for deuterium-deuterium fusion are more difficult to attain than for deuterium-tritium fusion.

Moreover, all the papers that I have seen about this concentrated on the great advantages that would happen if one would remove the tritium from the reactor as soon as it is produced, but none of them mentioned the practical means to do this. Removing promptly the tritium from the plasma of a fusion reactor is something much easier said than done.
One important percentage. Solutions development and other overhead's also count naturally.

"Data Center Power Costs":

"...In a data center, typically 20-40 % of the operating cost is related to data center power costs..."

https://greenmountain.no/2020/07/01/data-center-power-costs/

Also in the article above there this bar chart:
https://greenmountain.no/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Cost-of-...

were once more Germany costs for electricity are so much higher than anybody else.

"How Much Does it Cost to Power One Rack in a Data Center?":

https://www.nlyte.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-power-on...

"...The energy cost to power a single server rack in a data center in the US can be as high as almost $30,000 a year, depending on its configuration. In a data center with 100 cabinets, the cost to power those racks each year can be over $3 million. Data center professionals need to ensure that they are correctly monitoring energy consumption and efficiently managing capacity..."
You can also query gzip and zstd parquet files directly.
> Also WFH tends to discriminate people doing "less important" jobs,

You are mixing pandemic with WFH. When you work, you still need childcare and otherwise be working. Doing chores and house work during breaks is a nice “perk” that saves me time, but it must not come at the expense of the work itself, just like it would not with WFO.

If anything, WFH has been more inclusive as many other comments have said, especially of people that don’t like direct “confrontation” of large meetings and “loudest first” prioritization. Video conf chat has become a valuable and documentable discussion medium that can include comment not urgent enough to interrupt the speaker in the moment, but still useful to the overall context. I hope some of these inclusive benefits are retained with hybrid or whatever approaches are utilized for work in the future.

Another interesting inclusivity question is the location itself. People tend to congregate by common traits, so locating an office in a given neighborhood or city implicitly discriminates those groups who do not have a large presence nearby. Remote definitely allows (but importantly does not guarantee) a much more diverse employee population and greater fairness in access to these jobs. There are of course counter points with availability of working space and internet connection, so this is a very complex issue.
Can confirm, worked as a Congressional intern.

Order of importance was (at least in 2011):

1. In person meeting
2. Physical letter
3. Phone call
> smaller labor force you are willing to hire and a lower quality one.

The first part is true. The second is a leap, plenty of high quality talent actively chooses to not work at FB, or happens to not work there. By not selecting from the former FB pool I have not lowered the overall quality of my labor pool. I have increased the integrity standards though.
Hire Managers of One (2008)
Maybe you should reply to my previous post first.
Correction to my posts above:

(Warning: NSFW content)

After a little more reading, I get the impression that while pedastry may have been common for ancient Greek philosophers, it may have taken a form other than anal sex.

IIUC, in their society, anal sex (with anyone, including women) was considered vulgar. At least according to their surviving writings; no idea about common practice.

Disclaimer: Not my area of expertise. I'm just going from a few additional resources I found on the topic.
Windows 11 Mobile phone with its native support for Android apps can counter the monopoly of big G. Will Microsoft come to our rescue?
Yeah, 2p5 (two uops on port 5) for a compressed store vs 1p05 (1 uop on either port 0 or port 5) for a masked move. For throughput's sake, shifting the pointer is better.
Was it really necessary to expand the fourth paragraph post-script to get your point across? Before it was a fairly holistic look at the difference between people who want flexibility and people who want stability, where neither party was necessarily right. Now it just reads like you're mocking people for desiring transparency in their hardware, which... seems hard to demonize?
force companies to provide support against their will?

Yes. This happens all the time in all sortes of industries. But people on HN think that tech companies are somehow different and shouldn't be held to the normal rules that other companies have adhered to for decades, generations, and centuries.