skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
EVs still have a ton of embodied carbon in their production. Creating those batteries is not easy, we still haven't figured out how to remove carbon emission from the steel production process, and at the end of the day we can't beat climate change with out reducing our overall resource consumption substantially.

I looked up the numbers and did the math a few years ago, and best case scenario - an EV fueled entirely by non-emitting sources - is that an EV cuts emissions by 85% in a full lifecycle analysis.

And that's actually a pretty rare case. Most people getting EVs right now are charging them on grids that are still mostly powered by fossil fuels. Which complicates matters even further. Where I live, if I were to use an EV charged on the grid, I would actually be _increasing_ my emissions over a reasonably fuel efficient gas powered ICE.

For most people, car use doesn't have to be necessary. With intelligent design of our cities and a shift in culture, most people could get around primarily by foot, on bike, or by mass transit and forgo car ownership. So drastically reducing car ownership needs to be the bigger part of the equation. Those who absolutely still need to own a car can go EV. But we can't hit our carbon targets by simply replacing all the ICE vehicles with EVs.
Insait launched in ML space, offering opportunities for students and startups
This is the best solution I have found so far being a long time vim user. ssh + tmux + vim is all you need. Least amount of potential problems in this setup. vim runs locally on the server where "remote development" is being done, so there is very little friction in terms of getting it to do what you'd like it to do given all the plugins you can add to it for beefing it up.

I have heard stories from coworkers about work being lost when editing is done remotely instead of locally, so never ventured that way.
That was my sense too back than, Puppet had early traction, but lost out to Chef, and then Ansible turned out to be the marathoner of the 3.
Funny to read someone discover analog film for the first time, when you grew up with it yourself. While I am happy I learned and practiced manual film development in the lab (bw only), I would not move back from my full frame DSLR anytime soon.
It's crazy to me that academic fraud isn't a more pressing concern to society in general and academia in particular. The scientific process as currently implemented is broken across every single discipline. Even subjects like CS that should in theory be trivially reproducible, are rarely so. The reproduction crisis is still going on, but only nerds like us care.
The real physicist has to "produce some body of work on a regular schedule to advance their career", the crackpot moves on his own pace. (e.g. I used to be a bit of an expert on this because I was involved with arXiv's anti-crackpot policy)

The real physicist publishes in journals like Physical Review E, the crackpot self-publishes books (or maybe) publishes in predatory journals that specialize in crackpot papers.

Crackpotism has nothing to do with science but with feelings of "I'm special", and it is right up there with taking LSD and thinking you are the Christ or the anti-Christ.
> ordered the ground forces in

as i recall, the air war was so devastating there wasn't much of a purpose for ground troops and when it came time to "order the ground forces in" most of the work was just walking across Kuwait. They even made a movie about how much of a let down the ground war was to the Marines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarhead_(film)
I did! The name makes sense too and is a good mix of witty and intuitive. Best of luck to you!
I'd argue that it's not just that the metrics don't scale but the problem is that we are trying to find quantitative metrics for something that can't be easily quantified. The worst outcome is not even the forgeries and fakes as in this article, but more that even the vast majority of ethical academics are being pushed into a direction that is detrimental to longterm scientific progress, in particular short term outcomes instead of longterm progress.
buying carbon offset always struck me as the same as regularly beating your wife and kids, and then absolving your sins by donating some money each year to a domestic violence non-profit.
Considering, I'm Ukrainian, just now in Kiev, and China avoiding to implement sanctions against Russia, I believe, I will not see anything from China in 2025.

Because all those "Made in China", now look for me, as made from Ukrainian blood.
Cities are older than most of the people living there. People know what they get when they move to a city and pay higher prices for that. For quiet there are better cheaper options, ones where you don’t have the noise of sharing buildings and walls with others above, below, and beside you. Obviously if one person wants cars and another doesn’t it will come down to how many want that, but moving to a city for quiet is like wanting to go swimming without getting wet.
Simple: no more personal cars

But yeah that would require work, let's just cry about losing convenience and continue perpetuating the same cycle again, since we have no options but to commit to our clearly unsustainable model
Crackpots who study physics and try to publish are a well-known phenomenon and almost all of them are men.

I don't think narcissism is the issue here and I don't think women are less likely to fall for scams, just different kinds of scams.
> Its hard in rust because any code you pull in can always drop down to unsafe, and in unsafe land you can really do whatever you want.

Not super familiar with Rust, so this may be a silly question: could Rust mitigate this by forbidding third-party packages to use unsafe code, except for ones you specifically allowlist? e.g. your Cargo.toml might look like this

[dependencies]
trusted = { version = "1.0.0", unsafe = true }
untrusted = "1.0.0"

The trusted library would be allowed to use unsafe code, but the untrusted one would not.
Exactly. Somebody would need to put together a standard lib, maybe even by repacking some already de-facto standard libraries. But only one library per category (one „is“ library, one date library, …). It’s a very opinionated task, but it could really help.
If China did something crazy that required Russia level sanctions on China, Apple would be hard over a barrel. You could have an Apple with nothing to sell but their existing, current inventory. They should be spreading out some manufacturing to hedge risk.
It's really context dependent.

1-person tools make it easier to audit the person involved, and like you said in general I also find that those tools tend to be smaller and have fewer dependencies, which makes a big difference for security. Limited scope is good when looking at packages/dependencies, and side-projects are kind of required to have limited scope just by virtue of not having a ton of resources.

However, 1-person tools also have less accountability and less bandwidth to respond to emergencies, and (particularly if there aren't a lot of eyes on them), you need to evaluate whether the developer is qualified to build the package -- ie, are they likely to inadvertently introduce a security vulnerability or abandon the package if it needs security updates? People (myself included) have an instinctive bias to assume that 3rd-party code is written by people who know what they're doing. Part of the evaluation process needs to be asking, "does this person actually have the skill to do what they're trying to do?"

I also try to look at how documented the project is -- in an emergency, could I fork the project myself? If a project is being run by only 1 person, then it's more likely that the codebase isn't massive and that it wouldn't require a full team to update. But it's also less likely to be well-documented or extensively tested. Again, balancing act.

I'm not sure there's a single correct answer, I think it depends a lot on the project and on what kinds of packages you're looking at.
BTC doesnt handle smart contracts.
The point is exactly that leafblowers do not represent a technological improvement: they have too many downsides, and accomplish too little. No one is arguing that all technological progress is bad. Rather, in the specific case of leafblowers they represent a detriment, and should be used infrequently-to-never.
Painting a Landscape using Mathematics [video]
https://eng.uber.com/
has great articles covering many topics
Were the artists formerly known as Dixie Chicks cancelled or did their market fragment and they chose to focus on one segment? For some, is the notoriety of "cancellation" a welcome signal of authenticity and salience to consumers? For example Prince successfully used self-cancellation as a marketing rebirth during a legal dispute.

The Dixie Chicks are joining a growing list of brands, entertainers, and artists making changes in wake of the racial justice movement happening now. Like many, they "want to meet this moment" in history, which is why the country trio will go by The Chicks from this point forward.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/a3297240...
Principal Engineer, I believe.
Awesome. I did not remember this.
This is similar to electronics supply chain. If you source from shady component distributors, you’re going to get bitten with something like a faulty capacitor with an annoying frequency in volume. The difference here is that a single vulnerability can take down your entire app or worse. It’s like sourcing components that can potentially do irreversible fire damage to your customers.

This is why they rely on trust worthy distributors and manufacturers. Without payment incentive and with high expectations for free stuff, this is not possible to solve.

Billion dollar companies building on people’s hobby projects. In any other industry, this would be unprofessional.
But how does one try to change the rules of a place without talking about them? Is the only answer to leave the place and find one where the rules already align?

I don't ask this facetiously, as I studied intercultural communication in college and have lived in a lot of places, often asking myself how much do I stay in a place and try to change the rules versus leaving to find a place where the rules already align with what I want.
Also, again simply for what it is worth (not arguing anything, just pointing out what I am seeing - do with it what you will!), nearly every article returned when Googling his name seems to be about the shooting.
Russian Railways Ruled in Default over Missed Bond Payment
Well, for what is worth, we have a lot of dependencies maintained by Microsoft of all companies, with lots of production-breaking bugs and they're not too interested in fixing or letting us fix. Even getting fully-functional PRs (with good test coverage and community support) looked at takes a lot of work and time, let alone getting fixes after reporting issues.

One of those packages is a JS package that is hosted by them, so we can't even fork it and host ourselves.

On the other hand, with simple packages that get abandoned, we just fork, publish ourselves with another name or namespaced, and it's solved.
Sort of a cake and eat it too mentality if you ask me. If you're not willing to build your own JS glue then you should at least take time to audit the glue you are pulling in from some thankless developer who probably started this as a hobby project in college and now it is the backbone of 10 fortune 500 frontends.

I'm sorry that they can then do whatever the hell they want with that package but this ecosystem exists because companies want free stuff but don't want to provide back into it.
TY. updating the title.
My experience of gitlab hasn’t been completely positive. It tries to do too many things but the problem with trying to cover so much ground is that eventually you stop working with the product and start working around it. Not to mention how cluttered the UI is because of it.

It still has many positives as an alternative to GitHub that also happens to be open source, of course.
Having just left VA after a year in residence, VA drivers pass at 1-3mph deltas because they're already doing 15mph+ over the speed limit. Perhaps enforcement is different in southern VA, but I'd estimate only seeing speed traps/vehicles pulled over once every 3-4 weeks.

Maryland (and, to a lesser degree, New Jersey) drivers are legitimately terrible whenever you find them.
"Would you like something to read?"

"Do you have anything light?"

"How about this leaflet, NPM: The Good Parts?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoACIIz33II
The key reason I'm okay with no-soda households is that there's few if any social contexts where you're expected to have a soda. You mention eating sugar, but I think banning that really would risk falling off the wagon - you're not gonna keep your kid from noticing that ice cream is tasty for 18 years.
[Author here] A more careful wording of "will it work if everyone does it" would be "if many people do it, does that reduce its feasibility for everyone else"?

This addresses the arctic circle and hunter-gatherer examples. Obviously there are no one-size-fits-all solutions in life. Solar panels won't work above the arctic circle, EVs won't work in an area with no roads, hydropower won't work in a desert. But if I install a solar panel, that doesn't interfere with your ability to also install a solar panel.

"Not enough minerals, not enough land, not enough batteries" would be a real problem if true, but my understanding is that it is not true. Of course we have a lot of work to do in developing mineral sources, scaling up battery production, and so forth. But I have not seen a credible source indicating that it cannot be done. Do you have any such pointers? (The actual trends so far have been very strongly in the opposite direction: the more batteries we produce, the cheaper they get.)

As for this:

> He has rightly shown that offsets cannot work for full decarbonization, but so what. No one thing will.

The limitations of offsets are different than the limitations of, say, solar power. It's absolutely true that solar power can only be part of the solution, but when you put solar power together with wind and storage and (pick your favorites) geothermal, nuclear, etc., you can get to a complete solution for power generation. In this picture, solar is providing an important contribution.

Offsets, conversely, cannot be composed with other tools to achieve a complete solution. If a cement plant operator pays to preserve a forest, who is going to address the (ongoing!) emissions from the cement plant? Not the cement plant operator; they already did their part, they purchased an offset.
> there was only distinction between Diesel(hydraulic) and electric locomotives, and passenger vs. freight rail

That's oversimplifying things a little too much – type-ratings were a little more fine-grained than that even during the days of the Federal Railways.
I'm going to address Bitcoin because I think most cryptos are scams at the worst, or unsustainable systems with poorly designed incentives at best.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner, we all envision it as a medium of exchange. This is the goal, 100%. Some finance bros see if differently, but Bitcoin is money. And if you spend any time on research, or reading any of the top Bitcoin books (there are many), you would know the Lightning network is the answer we advocate.

Bitcoin isn't deflationary, but it is disinflationary. The money supply grows at a predictable rate until it will eventually stop growing. The idea that you need inflation to be a viable currency is a sort of fever dream delusion that economists tell each other to justify their own terrible inflationary policies.

The argument is that you need your money to slowly lose value to encourage people to consume and to keep the velocity of money up. But that is a ridiculous argument on its face because if the argument is "consumers won't consume today if they think the price will go down in the future" then the opposite argument must also be true: "producers won't produce today if they think the price will go up tomorrow." It's an entirely self defeating argument, but that gets ignored in macroeconomics classes, and most people don't think critically enough to question it.

The reasons that Bitcoin isn't a great medium of exchange yet is because: 1) There's not enough liquidity yet because it's a relatively small market still. 2) The payment layer isn't fully developed.

Both are changing, however, and changing quickly.

The monetary policy of Bitcoin has already ossified, and no one could change consensus rules if they wanted to. This makes it the soundest, hardest money we have. It is already a long term store of value. Network effects have taken over, and are probably on a runaway track at this point. In order to break this process, you will need to break the network, which you likely can't do. People will continue to use the network and acquire Bitcoin. Value will accrue to the network. Eventually, it will become so valuable that merchants will start preferring Bitcoin payments. This is when it will become the medium of exchange.

You say this is a "greater fool" scam, but actually, we are just seeing something we haven't seen before in recent human history: the bootstrapping of an entirely new money from nothing. This is how it happens. It starts as a store of value, then transitions to medium of exchange, then becomes a unit of account. That is the order. We are nearing the transition point from step 1 to step 2.
Unlikely, considering China has a headstart of several decades in electronics and consumer devices production. Not to mention a centralized, completely tuned governance and infrastructure policy for massive industries as against India's federal democratic government that has been mostly anti-capitalist until the 21st century.
I've seen a few people have already given https://bulletpitch.xyz a well deserved mention. Their newsletter reports on a new startup once a week with TL;DR in mind. It's written by these two college students who give a great GenZ perspective. This letter doesn't specialize in a specific industry of startups, but it does a great job of highlighting early stage companies. Worth checking out.
Yes. Have you ever tried to raise a teenager during puberty? Hormone-induced behaviors is definitely a thing.
emacs-nox
There are plenty of women in real finance who are totally accomplished. Many women have developed quant/derivative products (... like those CDOs that blew up in 2008), manage projects for firms like Swift/DTCC, run banks, etc. (The latter get featured in American Banker a lot.)

I am not talking of woman who go at these things with a gendered agenda but who rather go at it with quiet competence.
It's The Daily Beast, an outlet for journalistic abortions of consistency similar to Britain's Sunday Sport.
I suppose all demographics can get ripped off while harming the planet equally.
hey can you dm me at support-at-iradeo.com; we can talk through specifics.

edited the email address.
My own rather short academic career involved doing lab work with three different PI-led groups. One PI was actually excellent, and I really had no idea how good I had it. I caught the other two engaging in deliberately fraudulent practices. For example, data they'd collect from experiments would be thrown out selectively so that they could publish better curve-fits. Another trick was fabricating data with highly obscure methods that other groups would be unlikely to replicate. They'd also apply pressure to graduate students to falsify data in order to get results that agreed with their previously published work.

The main difference between the excellent PI and the two fraudsters was that the former insisted on everyone in her lab keeping highly accurate and detailed daily lab notebooks, while the other two had incredibly poor lab notebook discipline (and often didn't even keep records!). She actually caught one of her grad students fudging data via this method, before it went to publication. Another requirement was that samples had to be blindly randomized before we analyzed them, so that nobody could manipulate the analytical process to get their desired result.

If you're thinking about going into academia, that's the kind of thing to look out for when visiting prospective PIs. Shoddy record keeping is a huge red flag. Inability to replicate results, and in particular no desire to replicate results, is another warning sign. And yes, a fair number of PIs have made careers out of publishing fraudulent results and never get caught, and they infest the academic system.
xD. that'd be interesting ;). But a lot more boring than that :)
Welcome to the wonderful world of film. I’ve shot almost entirely analog after a short foray trying digital in the late 2000s. With my life so digitally connected I found having the analog process kept the joy in photography for me and I simply love the slow process from making images down to the final print in the darkroom. At the end of the day I don’t want to dodge and burn in Lightroom, spending even more time in front of a screen. I want to do it with my hands and home made darkroom tools under red safety lights.

All this to say: if you’re getting into analog photography I suggest following it all the way to the end and making prints over scanning your images. It’s a lot of fun and gives you a lot of respect for every older photograph you look at plus wonder at what image processing has brought us in mobile phone sensors.
Voice to text most often yes. Doesn't need to navigate much, send a message with voice, and tap on notifications.
Thanks for the links. It's unfortunate that the author didn't evaluate most frameworks beyond "works, not accessible". But it provides a nice list for doing my own research.
Not in biotech, but have worked with people who use a tremendous amount of excel, especially in biology. A lot of the people still using Excel either came before bioinformatics libraries got really really good, had to basically teach themselves how to use a computer to deal with bio data, worked in a lab that had protocols in place for data that used Excel, and/or haven't gotten around to teaching themselves R. You have to keep in mind that Excel is extremely good at being a visual representation of data. R, Python (only really adopted in recent years), and Matlab (which I don't see too often in bio) are all excellent for manipulating the same data as Excel, but if you wanted to quickly scroll through your RNA sequencing counts, Excel provides a fast, (almost) out-of-the box way to get a "big picture" view of your data (I haven't met anyone doing bioinformatics in SAS or STATA, but I know people who have used those software in academia for other fields).

Even if no one is directly manipulating the data in Excel, if you don't import the data correctly, or forget to _not_ save the data, you'll end up fucking it with Excel's auto-formatting. These subtleties lead to things as mentioned in the article, but aren't things that the ordinary person learns except through mistakes. Nobody is born knowing what tools to use or how to use them, but Excel is one of the first pieces of software that deal with data for a lot of people, and as such one of the first things they turn to when faced with a new problem.
Every phone is nowadays a slab with a touch display so there hasn't been big surprises for a long time. Just gradual improvements and small new features once in awhile.

To follow the scene I've noticed it's easier to follow new iPhone releases than multiple brands of Android phones. They are still more or less the same although the specs are in many cases a notch higher in Android phones as the Android seems to be more resource hungry.

I got frustrated with the Samsung OS support (long time for new Android releases and no support for quite recent devices etc) and switched from SGS 9 to iPhone 13. Been switching between iOS and Android couple of times earlier and it's good way to avoid platform lock-in.
A human gets pulled over and gets a ticket.

A bot gets pulled over and the cop acquiesces to the company.

Of course, monied interests dont get tickets. Only us plebes do.