skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'll bet that the average company can't maintain the same uptime as a cloud solution, even with high-profile one-week outages like these.

Its not only about uptime, its also about maintenance that is required to keep that uptime. It isn't there forever, you need to follow and adapt to API, license and other changes continuously.

> Implying that companies don't switch platforms when they have on-prem installations.

Be that as it may, you typically choose something that is not invented few years ago, but typically exists for decade and is battle tested. Lots of generic knowledge too, usable in other environments. And its not like people don't change Cloud platforms either...

> The comparison isn't Atlassian Cloud vs. your undefined production system, it's Atlassian Cloud vs. Atlassian On-prem (or $PLANNING_SOFTWARE_OF_CHOICE).

Comparison isn't between different supportive systems either. If I have a service, which is supported by specific infrastructure, I care about a service and current infra is just one mean to that end (I will happily replace parts of it that aren't compatible with that goal).

The comparison is a about which supportive system makes me do less work on the long run while keeping the same level of SLA. I don't care about individual features of supportive system in that regard, I care just about end effect. For one, if I have to relicense stuff every few months, its immediately not that good, as I can choose FOSS and let it be for decade.
From time to time, I see errors in IDE parsing. It's not a big deal there, but it would be in a compiler or interpreter.
Probably it's just me, but after 2016 and all that idiotic internet edgelord-ery that enabled and accompanied it, and the repercussions we will still feel for decades, I've lost all patience and interest with these type of 14-and-this-is-deep edgelords, especially when they're in their 20s or even older.

They don't add anything that for instance Houellebecq hasn't formulated before them, and way more poignantly. Just because they don't read literature but stew in the muddy waters of forums and usenet and other places, doesn't mean their pontificating can be excused.
Optimize.me (free) is a life changer. I’ve also started using their new paid coaching/scheduling app, Heroic.
There is not many ways to get rid of bufferbloat if you want to keep packet routing/switching networks.
I answered.

Grooming is wrong at any age, period. Even after the person is 100 years old and their parents signed on it, grooming is wrong. There's absolutely no "parental consent" that would turn anything that could be considered "grooming" into "appropriate". Your entire premise that something is grooming or not depending on parental consent is pure bullshit.

EDIT:

> I asked you what age do you think it's okay to teach these kids these lessons without the parents consent

Same thing. Parental consent is also not what makes certain information appropriate or inappropriate. It either is appropriate for the children or not. Depends on multiple factors and depends on the children, and it is better answered by professionals rather than by laymen. But it definitely doesn't depend on a parent agreeing or disagreeing.

> In my opinion talking to a minor about sex without parental consent is never appropriate.

That's quite a radical position, and a wrong one. There are appropriate ways for people to talk about sex, either in classroom, between friends, or in the media. If you don't think so, the only thing we can agree is to disagree.

Like the PG essay says, wether something is "truth" or not, and whether this information will be positive or negative for a child should be what govern this. Not some radical opinion of an helicopter parent that wants to micromanage every information their kid receives.

> I don't see why liberals are dying on this hill.

Because it accomplishes nothing but ignorance to children of conservative parents, which can lead to... children being more vulnerable to real grooming.
Except that almost every single Central and Eastern European country benefit tremendously from interference by the West. The region was mostly left alone after WW1 so we ended up with a bunch of isolated states run by quasi fascist regimes 1930's. And guess how that turned out?
Actually, HN indents with a spacer gif, in true early 00's fashion :)

<img src="s.gif" height="1" width="66">
I mean, I agree that practically PG will never feel any serious repercussions for saying whatever he wants _because_ of his wealth and influence. I don't think that's healthy (as wealth and influence are often afforded to people due to privilege or luck instead of ability, wisdom, or empathy) but it is how the world is currently.

The cancel culture boogeyman generally doesn't destroy lives, which makes one wonder why people like PG feel it so important that they need to write essays decrying it.
You have invented a “harm principle” to be used when evaluating truth, and the fact that you think this is a cogent argument is scarier than anything Paul Graham might have said.

One’s right to say something isn’t curtailed just because their saying it might intrude on your dogma more strongly than if it was said by someone with less social power.
No fewer than seven (seven!) breathing advisories in this thread. Unreal. What is it with people who feel the need to say, "Take a breath"? No, shit, damn I almost suffocated.
No. I think these are, more or less. But I have other ideas that are works in progress, or that I’m not so sure about.

Gender: I was talking about reality, not science fiction scenarios. Yes, by definition, in your example, you would be in the wrong body.
Thanks for sharing f5bot, that is a wonderful service to learn about. Exactly what I was looking for!
I'm not pitching in my $0.02 here (although I have plenty to say, as I seem to be an irredeemable heretic).

Emo Phillips was never my favorite comic, but he did have one bit that dovetails quite nicely, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78
Why does this site not have a SSL certificate?
Notable that this is a professional medical association saying this based on a stufy, not a journalist or blogger.
I'd like to, if you're alive you can always kill yourself if things are too bad, might as well have the choice.
I kind of agree but kind of disagree.

I find GBoard to be incredibly good, more or less as good as I remember Swype being. (I initially switched because GBoard supported Hebrew and Swype didn't, not because of accuracy, but didn't find it worse at least.)

I find the native Apple swipe interface to be terrible. It doesn't even come close to being as good as GBoard. And I use it fairly often, because if the Apple keyboard comes up I'll usually try to use it for 2-3 words, before getting frustrated and switching.

I have no idea why.
It's probably not quite that bad, but if there's a single train anywhere on any single track section that means the entire section is effctively blocked off to traffic in the other direction, it sounds like there's a lot more than a single freight train on it at any given time, and Amtrak wants to run round trips down the entire 138-mile track a couple of times a day.
A very good piece of journalism explaining the problem for non physicists.

For me personally, the discussion by the researchers about their guiding principles for conducting scientific research was a great reminder for all researchers..

As that section concluded :

"Science is organized in skepticism."
Apparently my reading needs work.
How the Internet Became Straight
I don't know of anything on the OS level, but when I have to write a long document in English I use the Kate text editor, which offers autocompletion based on words you've used already in that document.
Not any definitions I can find:

> belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.
Heresies are not merely unpopular opinions. They're unpopular opinions that will also get you aggressively ostracized and fired from your job.
The anti nuclear weapon propagandists have worked overtime for half a century to scare into people the notion that nuclear war would mean the end of humanity, the end of civilization. They're lying, largely for good intent I imagine (granted some of them actually believe it).

One of the dumbest quotes by a famous smart person I've run across is the Einstein quote about WW4 (it would be fought with sticks and stones), which most people here are likely familiar with. For a scientist it was comically irrational, emotional and false; a scare statement, nothing more.

Obviously we don't want a nuclear war to ever happen. If it does, neither humanity nor civilization will end. Russia could aim all of their nukes at the US and would struggle to kill more than a third of the US population at worst, and that's if their weapons all work and are all accurate. Russia couldn't kill everyone in Texas with their nukes if they wanted to. The vast majority of the rest of the world and its civilizations would continue on just fine.

And in a wider sense, the planet would shrug off the nuclear event. Even if it caused an extra million cases per year of cancer (an extreme outcome), the human population would shrug that off too (80 million net population is being added still). When it comes to material thrown up, that would be trivial, as someone else noted about prior wars and how that came to not much consequence.

So is it rational to keep lying to the population about the end-of-the-world risk that nukes (don't) pose, in an effort to prevent their use? Maybe, probably? They certainly pose a risk in terms of vast destruction, vast death, and the end of cities that get targeted. You could kill 300 million in a mass nuclear attack and that population would be replaced numerically in four years (which isn't to ignore all the other obvious effects, including that the new population isn't an instant stand-in for the people now missing).
Nowadays I just keep reading, if possible without clicking anything. Sometimes all I can get is 200 pixels of vertical reading space, but heck, fuck your cookies.

Sometimes I can’t scroll and just close the site
> The term to describe someone who is transitioning has changed like four times in the past five years and using the outdated term is considered wildly offensive.

I understand the euphemism treadmill can be difficult, but understand why it exists: when people in a group use certain words to self identify, those words are then coopted by outsiders of the group to vilify insiders. Therefore the old self-identifying words are abandoned by insiders and left as markers of those outsiders who are attempting vilify them. Meanwhile new words of self identification are adopted by insiders that have no negative connotation.

Take for instance people with mental disabilities. The words lunatic, insane, retarded, disabled, mentally disabled, special etc. have all been used to describe the same mental state, and have all been at times the "correct" way to refer to such people, and also the "insensitive" way to refer to such people. Calling someone "retarded" used to be clinical. Now you say "retarded" and it's a grave insult.

This is just the price of diversity, and existing in a world where people want to use powerful words to shame and demean. Words have amazing power, and when they are wielded in evil ways you have no other choice but to abandon the word and move to a next one.

This is why the N-word is so forbidden to say; Black Americans took a stand and said: "No more. We are reclaiming the power of this word, and you just can't use it anymore, period." It took a huge movement to make that social change, and it'll take the same similar movement to stop the euphemism treadmill for trans people.

In the meantime, try to keep up. If you make a real effort people notice and they have tolerance for that. However if you make clear that you have no idea why you have to keep up with all these words in the first place, and it's really all just a bother to you that you'd rather not deal with, you're implicitly signaling you're more aligned with someone who may use those words in a harmful way, and that may be why you are met with hostilities.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill
I don't. Keeping up with comment threads is something I do at work, not in my free time.
What we shouldn’t bother with is making facile and insipid comparisons that disservices both modernity and history.
I don’t think the iOS one is too terrible. I use it with autocorrect turned off. Predictably, it gets worse the faster I swipe, so I’ve found that it pays to slow down and be slightly more precise.

It got every word in that comment correct (although I had to change “to” to “too”).
>> orthodoxy, which is a social construct that imperfectly represents historical knowledge about good and bad.

One issue is that there are multiple orthodoxies. Each human culture has its own orthodoxy which is reflected in the culture's norms and practices.

>> there are good and bad places to challenge orthodoxy, and the workplace is usually a bad one. But sometimes orthodoxy changes very rapidly in certain areas, to the point where something orthodox ten years ago is firable today. That's not a good situation.

When and why is it right or just to judge one culture against another?

We can try to place ourselves in someone else's shoes, but it is very difficult to understand without having lived their lives and experienced it ourselves. Perhaps the best we can do is to be compassionate and tolerant of others who think or live differently than us. We can educate, persuade, and help, but condemning them and punishing them strikes me as unfair and perhaps unjust depending on the circumstances.
> A pretty image by itself is just that - a bunch of bytes displayed on device of your choice.

Isn't this the majority of the industry? Sure, maybe there are a few artists that can do profound work with context, meaning, etc. But when you're doing book covers for airport novels, you don't need any of that. Or when doing a website with a few images? You need a result that's good enough at the cheapest price. AI generated content is great for that.
What's the threat model you are considering?
If you have a high IQ, you can get high and wasted and lower it temporarily.

No way to do that the other way around.
It makes sense if you have one scheme that creates that is choked out by a different scheme that copies instead. Eventually there is no creation.
As a longtime LaTeX user, I find this behavior irritating, not once has it saved me effort. I would much rather have LaTeX exit to shell immediately and to report a good error. Instead, the dynamic "fix" is applied in opaque manner, totally unclear what the compiler did, it optimizes for "patch the input so compilation runs to completion" instead of "do what the user wanted", and once LaTex has finished, the user still must manually edit the original file to get a proper solution.
“Jewish people are white though”

Say what now?
I usually go to reject-all immediately (actually being able to reject-all some sites takes some practice, you may end up hooking some quick javascript in the devtools to reject each buttons when they don't give you a reject-all button, *SIGH*), unless I am especially disinterested in the page's contents (why I end up here? maybe a misleading search result leading to a crappy, SEO optimized page), in which case I close it too.

Its very disappointing to see what was probably a worthwile initiative end up in laws that produce this and do little to nothing to address the original concerns.

At least it _should_ give you a change to click that "X" before being tracked, but that is doubtful too, and the fact that the web has become (yet) more annoying as a result isn't.
> How do you decide what is relevant, and what not, if not with some statistical/ML methods?

To be clear, you're referring to software determining relevance. I can determine relevance on my own, though it may be time consuming. Making manually determining relevance as quick as possible worked okay in my experience at the USPTO.

Right now there probably are reliable signals about the relevance of a document/webpage/etc. But Goodhart's law suggests that any ranking signal used would be unreliable in the long run. Without AI on par or better than a human, I think the equilibrium would tend to be that search results can't be ranked well.

If ranking doesn't work, then each result is roughly as plausibly useful as the next. Given that, figuring out how to efficiently manually handle a lot of results is reasonable strategy, one that worked in my experience at the USPTO. It's not for everyone, mind you, but search software for serious searchers should consider this approach.

> I think the big difference between such a dataset and the web is, that the web is polluted with useless stuff like spam.

While patent attorneys aren't actively SEOing their patent applications, they do tend to write legal/technical gibberish that's basically just as useful as spam. (I wish patent attorneys did some mild SEO like adding relevant keywords as it would make examining patents easier...)
> The cancel culture boogeyman generally doesn't destroy lives, which makes one wonder why people like PG feel it so important that they need to write essays decrying it.

Since only people with wealth and privilege are in a position to denounce it, they must have questionable ulterior motives?

You argue dishonestly and incoherently.
> But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics.

Neither was I. Nor do I think Paul should be "rounded up" either. Just that I believe his mode of thinking is flawed. I expressed an opinion just as he did.
Learning c via pointers : https://learncodethehardway.org/c/

Different topic of containing values in an address vs. storing values in address given by address number -> https://libcello.org/learn/a-fat-pointer-library
It's also more true if you put "Irish" in there, but people wouldn't object so much to that (probably just be confused).

In politics, people are typically arguing for their positions, and thus you can't take simple statements of fact apart from what the speaker is trying to achieve. Basically: why is the speaker talking about Jewish people on power so much? Why do alt-right people love to talk about black crime statistics? Both of these things can be true, but they're not just making random statements, they're trying to imply their arguments. It's dogwhistling, basically.
I always wonder what the early c++ compilers looked like. Something that targeted AT&T 2.0 or 2.1 C++, so predating C++98.

I guess all we really have to go on is cfront or early gcc (1.15.3 was the first version with a c++ front end). We also have Walter Bright's Digital Mars compiler but how different is this from Zortech?
It’s a question of wiggle room. Foundational patents are generally a lot harder to work around.
psssssst!! but yeah, buy cheap, sell expensive to Europe, while claiming high ethics and all for their independence :D typical win-win-win (just for us though..)
Another word for heresy is political correctness.

The problem with it is you can attack anybody you dislike with very little cost to you because you stand with a large crowd agreeing with you. And you don't even have to understand the issues since the opinion you put out is commonly accepted. It in fact might not be your opinion but you can still use it to attack opponents.

Political correctness is a quite naturally occurring phenomenon. People oppose other people. There's not much we can do about it except try to point it out. But that's not what Paul Graham is doing, he's talking about it in the abstract, only.

That is not a bad thing but I see an issue with it: It gets you far away from actual issues that harm us greatly.

It is not the biggest problem that political correctness occurs. The problem is some of the things it is used for.

For instance in Russia it is the ultimate heresy to say that Russia is fighting a war on Ukraine. The war is a real big problem. It is not caused by political correctness, supporters of the war are simply using political correctness to support the war. And state-sanctioned official heresies, yes that's what we need to fight and expose in general.

The real problem is not political correctness but using it for bad purposes. Like using it to support an unprovoked military attack on your neighboring country and putting the "heretics" into prison.
I had the same experience. It was absolute sorcery the first time I used it. I was able to type without looking and would be confident that the result was correct.
Using the Google keyboard now is still pretty good, but I routinely have to correct words.

I also have two languages installed
now and it will sometimes type a completely nonsensical sentence in the wrong language. I can't say for sure if this is better or worse though, I only knew one language back when I used Swype.
The problem with "electric heaters" is that electricity for ANYTHING can NEVER be better that 50% efficient and often is worse. Natural gas heating can EASILY attain 70%-80% efficiency in heating.

Green Energy is generally contrary to the laws of physics in this sense. It's one step forward and three-to-five steps backward.
Omg this is the situation my cat, but instead of food it's for laying down with him and cuddling. He'll jump on the couch or bed, stare and/or meow until I lay with him.
Some us based companies forbid to use obsidian due to this clause in license:

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable in that Province. Any action or proceeding arising from or relating to this Agreement may only be brought in the courts located in Kitchener, Ontario and each party irrevocably submits to such exclusive jurisdiction and venue.
There were several other games that used volumetric shadows before Doom 3, AFAIK Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind are two. Even id's own Quake 3 (enabled by a console command) used it though it was a bit buggy.
Generalized world recession spilling into epic, catastrophic famines and wars in the third world.
> a species so smart

Russia Claims Ukraine’s Refusal to Share Borscht Proves ‘Nazism’ [1]

I mean, the nuclear annihilation of humanity as a result of Ukrainian denial of borscht as a common heritage with Russia would be a perfect end of the world.

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-claims-ukraines-refusal...
There are tools out there that facilitate this: https://github.com/paulirish/github-email
> We are not Vulcans.

Exactly. Graham gives the impression that he thinks conversations are a set of automata exchanging logical propositions. Rather makes me wonder if he's ever met a human.
The particularly uncharitable reading of that quote that jumped to my mind when I read it is "but why can't I, a white guy, say the n-word?" But this probably isn't what Graham actually had in mind.

I think Graham is trying to operate in some idealized plane of pure logical statements where you can speak truthful axioms and reason from them. He misses that in the real world statements have a context, are part of an ongoing cultural conversation, and imply consequences.

There are things you can say which are "true" but which miss the point or suggest that you're pushing for a certain policy outcome. There's a lot of situations where you can say "the statistics say X and so we should do Y" and the (fairly valid) rebuttal is, essentially, "why did you accept the societal structure that produced those statistics?"