skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For those who live outside the US (or maybe outside California) in California there is a legal crosswalk (ie a 'zebra crossing') at EVERY uncontrolled (ie without lights) intersection, whether it is painted in or not, and pedestrians have absolute right of way (the trade off is that they are not allowed to cross anywhere along a block between intersections).

I now live in NZ where mostly we have Yield/Give Way signs if anything, and pedestrians have no rights (also the neighbourhood speed limit is higher 30mph vs 25) - I'd love for us to have 4 way stops everywhere and slower speed limits everywhere
In John Stuart Mill's seminal work On Liberty, he explicitly calls out the tyranny and power of social consequences and their ability to chill free speech. He notes that social consequences for minority opinions can be even more severely chilling than even state consequences. Of course, as I recall he also basically offered no solutions.

Social consequences are both necessary and cause problems. It's really a very complicated thing. People should be free to explore ideas that turn out to be bad without losing their livelihoods. We need to hold people accountable for their actions, but we also need to allow people to make mistakes and learn.

If I think about what happened with Lindsay Ellis, that seems like a gross overreaction. If I think about how people on Twitter sharply criticize Chris Pratt because of the church he attends (which is also attended by other Hollywood stars) then that seems like an overreaction, too. On the other hand, the response to Kevin Spacey seems like it might be more appropriate.

The real issue is that "being cancelled" is only a problem for people who are famous and not powerful. If you're powerful, being cancelled really doesn't do anything at all. Indeed, if you're powerful, being cancelled can just get people to agree with you more even if you have actually done the awful things you are cancelled for.

Nevertheless, there is so much pearl clutching, clout chasing, outrage Olympics, victim identity politics, and manufactured wedge issues on social media that it's just one big rat's nest. Worse, it all overshadows the real problems like actual political issues and misinformation being spread to manipulate opinion.
This is a really interesting application of DL, and something that it should be well-positioned to do. I'm excited for the results!
25 mph for a car is quite slow. It’s the standard around school zones.

Are you suggesting cars go even slower?

When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph.

It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same.

Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.
Surely the legal department alone requires more than 50 employees, considering all the countries they operate in I imagine there are many legal requests.
“A guilty system recognizes no innocents. As with any power apparatus which thinks everybody’s either for it or against it, we’re against it.”
P.S. I mentioned having links in the source code to the part of the spec. The only problem with this is when the spec (i.e. the C11 Standard) is not in html form. I can only add the paragraph number in the code. What an annoying waste of time every time I want to check that the implementation is exactly right.

For contrast, there's this site:

https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/index.html

which is a godsend to me. Now, in the dmd code generator, I put in links to the detail page for an instruction when the code generator is generating that instruction. Oh, how marvelous that is! And there is joy in Mudville.
I mean that it seemed to suggest that you could pipe directly to Emacs, without using vipe.
"Anyone able to shed any light on why they're doing this?"

Same question here, As usual, no reasons are given (must admit I'm getting sick of these corporations failing to explain their actions). Right, I'm old enough to remember when companies used to issue detailed revisions sheets/documentation wherein they described what the changes were and the reason for them just as a matter of course.

(Even after being an unwilling member of the users' mushroom club for some 20/30 years, I'm still having difficulty adjusting.)
> What are your strengths and weaknesses,.. hey what is this a psychological scan?

That's exactly what it is, and it's important. It's not helpful over the long run if we hire someone who can crank out good code, but their mindset negatively infects the rest of the team, causing morale to drop and people to leave.

I give technical interviews, but I'm also evaluating soft skills while I do it. I would rather have a team with ok-to-good technical skills, than a team with a rockstar prima donna who sabotages the cohesiveness of the whole.
They kind of proving one of your points though. Clearly you did not know what rolling-coal meant, you said so, and admitted it multiple times. Carry on, sir!
This paper convinced me it will be at least a decade before SGX or similar have any semblance of security:

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit...

The basic idea is that you can play with the clockspeed and voltage of one ARM core using code running on the other. They used this to make an AES block glitch at the right time. The cool part is that, even though the key is baked into the processor, and there are no data lines to read the key (other than the AES logic), this lets them infer the key.

Hmm. The paper is 5 years old. I still think we are a decade away.
The nih thing isn’t a theory. The lab leak Part is speculation
Just realized, even funnier is that the studies cited on the Wim Hof site are not blinded studies at all, let alone double blind, despite the claims in that tirade.
It is Bing, but they seem to use different ranking and filtering on the index.vIf you make complex queries it is quite obvious. Since they have zero transparency the details of their system and deal with bing is unclear.
>>> Thats called tyranny by the majority.

>Really funny that American neo-con reactionaries have introduced such a concept. Anywhere else, it's just called "democracy".

Your bias is showing... "Neo-con reactionaries" didn't introduce the concept. John Quincy Adams first did in 1788. It was popularized by John Stuart Mill in 1859.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Yes, which is excessive, I agree, but there’s nothing mechanically preventing it.
Thanks for the input. I really appreciate the answer. One question. Can he borrow against the twitter equity he just bought previous to this offer or he can borrow against future twitter equity he is acquiring with this offer?
>Why would Apple, with all their money, need to hire H-1B generalist Software Engineers and Project Managers when they can out-compete literally any other company on earth

Because they can't put the real job title on the application where that site got data from. It has to be within these generic ones by regulation:

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm
Related HN article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31046791
I read something once, along the lines of "When I left home my father was so ignorant I couldn't stand to be around him. A few years later, I was surprised at how much the old boy had learned." Something like that.

Basically - being out on my own, getting married, and having children let me understand my father much better.
The truly amazing part of this is that if the loopholes were closed, overwhelmingly by percentage population, almost everyone in the economy would win, but astronomically large numbers of W-2 recipients oppose closing the loopholes.

It's perverse "but one day maybe I can too" FOMO defence of the ultra wealthy by ordinary taxpayers. Like antiunionism, I simply can't understand it: this is no evidence of malfeasance by unions which would outweigh the benefit to owners of Starbucks, Tesla and Amazon underpaying workers, and there is no way the W-2 recipient can secure anything like the millions and millions of dollars of benefit the ultra rich secure, but masses of ordinary voters continue to oppose tax reform.

We had this in spades, in Australia last election. A tax feature of fully paid franking credits was up for review and thousands of retired non recipients of franking credits opposed the reform "because they might loose out on future income" which, as pension recipients they would never ever receive: they don't own shares, and the shares they don't own never receive fully franked tax credits.
In the recent Ted talk Musk talked about needing AI-complete solutions for projects like full self-driving and Optimus (tesla bot) to succeed. He also wryly mentioned that there was a plan b if his Twitter bid wasn't accepted.

He's heavily invested in AI and machine learning, could he be interested in twitter's data?
Exactly.

And the main limitation of this approach is that it's really hard to prevent breaking a single cpu from being a class break.

You manage with glitches or side channels (e.g. spectre for sgx) to steal the per cpu secrets, and then you setup an emulator that can obtain intel attestation, then suddenly any application that depends on the impossibility of an emulator faking that attestation is broken.

It's even harder for these DRM-focused SGX like solutions because they really need the attestation to be anonymous to avoid it being a massive tracking vector and privacy breach... while a more traditional hsm attestation would still identify the device and potentially allow limiting the impact of compromising a single one.
Wow, thats wild, I hadn't even thought that he would then take that and sell it to private investors. Presumably at a higher price and make the money right back? Thanks for responding and great input!
I think “responsible” is a bit too strong a word, when most of these computations could just run on the client.

I agree this work is important and enclaves are better than nothing though.
> sometimes fired from their jobs because of a racist tweet or off-putting remark

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell am firing someone who is says racist things. Keeping them around is not good for your company, for the other employees, for your vendors/clients, or anyone else associated with your company.
Unless you are specifically hiring for low-level network performance tuning (which is not how 99% of Googlers are hired), this still seems like a trivia question that's only marginally related to a person's C(++) competency. My impression is that Google discouraged asking such questions.

Source: worked at Google.
Sounds absolutely insufferable.

How do people continue to get by with such little insight.
That'd have to be a big fucking sack of rice and potatoes.
The lesson I take away from this is that governments with the power to enforce lockdowns are far more dangerous than any virus.
Musk clearly knows how to delegate a vision.
Most likely yea
> it isn't CPC driven (rather, private companies are supposed to self censor

The CCP dictates what gets filtered, so not sure what you mean by them not 'driving' it. Are you saying that because they don't own the hardware? If so, that's rather pedantic, given that the party has effectively unlimited power to dictate how any given resource is used, and is doing so in this case.

> The Great Firewall specifically is package filtering technology installed at ISPs with out-of-china links.

If this were an academic conversation about what the word means, or where it originated, then yeah, I get you. However, I was pointing out what the term has come to mean colloquially and why. If you generally have a gripe about the confusing overload of the term, then your argument should focus on potential confusion.

> China can't use it against internal traffic because it would basically shut the internet down completely in the entire country (given its slow performance).

Edit: I misread your last paragraph.

There s ample evidence the CCP deploys the same type of filtering internally, I don't think it being potentially different hardware or methods is anything more than technical detail is the outcome if the same.
How do you find out what CPU your VM is running on in a compute cloud, in order to ask Intel about it? You can't go to the data center and look at the serial number printed on the chip. It's probably negative-ROI for an IaaS vendor to have the ops staff at the DC to go do that as a customer service. And AFAIK there's nothing like a control-plane API for querying a hypervisor's hardware serial numbers in an IaaS-maintained inventory DB. So presumably, you have to... ask the VM itself. Maybe using something like the (long removed) CPUID instruction's "CPU serial number" output?

Presuming you can only learn the CPU's ID through through the VM itself, then an attacker with access to the hypervisor, plus at least one private key extracted from a sacrificial CPU of the same model, could just have the VM report the extracted-from CPU's serial number, and then use the respective extracted private key in their SGX enclave emulation. And this would check out with Intel.

Or, of course, a lot more simply, you could just make up your own keys instead of extracting any Intel keys, and then have the VM rewrite any Intel CPU root certs it finds in the VM's memory to be the attacker's certs instead (and any hashes of those certs be the hashes of the attacker's certs, etc.); such that messages signed by fake-SGX validate within the VM, and messages encrypted by fake-SGX decrypt within the VM, and messages encrypted by the VM decrypt within fake-SGX. In other words — don't keygen the user's workload; crack it. The SGX enclave is very rarely used in such a way where the component checking it is running on anything other than the same VM calling into it, so why bother worrying about what other untainted machines communicating with the enclave might see? That'd be like worrying about what more-sensible third-parties might tell your victim in a confidence scheme.
>Social media companies are in the unenviable position of playing referee in the culture war

They are self-appointed referees in a game where many of the participants never wanted or asked for a referee. These companies could simply limit themselves to removing spam and explicitly illegal content (which should be referred to authorities), but instead they choose to put their finger on the scale and wade into the fray.
Watson Parker* stupid autocorrect ;(
You missed the "not" part of the sentence.
Good to have mentioned this. The interpretation of "immenent lawless behavior" varies greatly. My wife is an attorney and very recently was on a case where this particular case was cited. While I get your intent in mentioning it, the case is very specific and while Schenck is cited, it does not translate directly to "you can't say fire in a theater," but rather it's far more nuanced. It also doesn't change the fact that the "fire" argument is a lazy slinging of words lacking appropriate nuance.
I don't believe this to be true. Maybe if your goal is to live where you can't afford.
I do that extensively when hiring and it is valuable. But sadly, many people can hold a technical discussion without actually being able to read/write code. I'd like my orchestra to have a lively discussion of music theory, but I still need to hear them play the violin.
the order books are very thin. if you tried to cash out $100 million on monero it would collapse prices.
How to Remove Empty Folders in Google Drive
In this case you rely on a functional rational market in ideal business operating conditions.

If I issue more stocks for a meme stock at the height of it's popularity it will likely go up in price for reasons completely disconnected from the balance sheets and future revenue.

Conversely, if I recently started the process for bankruptcy and issue more stocks to cover the liabilities on my balance sheet, the stock could very well decrease disproportionately to the number of issued stocks.

Stocks at the end of the day are based on the market's perception of the stock's worth. The market is not a single rational actor, rather numerous small irrational actors and a few very large highly rational actors. Obviously there is a spectrum in between, but the ratio of buyers on a given end of the spectrum will influence the behavior of a stock to either align or diverge from the fundamentals of the company, and not always in the way you would intuitively expect.
Are you suggesting any of what you just named aren't really, really racist, sexist, and authoritarian?
I’m not the kind of person who engages in cheap ad hominem with someone they’re in discussion with, that’s what I do know.

> I'm not sure why you keep focusing on PatanjalI

He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.

> But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them

Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning. Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them? Ridiculous. They’re an idea anyway, even if they were “invented” today they couldn’t be copyrighted.

This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
related 400 comment thread from 3 months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932630
>>>Because we need more people employed as opposed to one person with 2x income

To me that just suggests we have a massive over-supply of labor. Whether labor is employed or not, it comes with a non-zero resource maintenance cost, which exacerbates things like climate risk, etc. Setting tax policies in such a way to maximize the number of meatbags assembling widgets strikes me as directing us towards an erroneous local maximum. Feeding fewer mouths, but doubling the resource allocations to each would be preferred.
(Apologies for the misinterpretation; thanks for clarifying)
You spend a lot of time excusing the actions of an authoritarian government (while living in what I can only assume is a free western country).

Criticism of the Chinese government isn't criticism of you personally.
Except most commercial code bases are tangled rats nests and it would take a substantial effort to understand anything beyond the most basic details. My view of interviewing is it should require no special effort on the part of the engineer to demonstrate their skills. One simple way to do this is to have the engineer explain an open source project they've already built. Obviously this doesn't work for people who have never created open source projects they would be comfortable sharing. But I think we need to be doing more to actually value people's time.

My experience with many companies is they treat people as a 'resource' that needs to be managed rather than a human BEAN. Companies, in the process of funneling around these resources, forget that there is an individual cost to these resources. And if your first introduction to a company is being dehumanized and treated like your time doesn't matter: what are the chances that this company is a good place to work at? And that mans name. Albert Einstein.
This discussion isn’t going anywhere; you just keep reusing the same old motte and bailey. Have a nice day!
So it was 4chan before they made enough trouble to get law enforcement attention. In the beginning it was just a bunch of pissed off nerds posting anime that no one took seriously
Getting rich by not doing anything? Do you think bring a landlord is easy? Aren’t property owners providing housing to tenants which the tenants aren’t responsible for? Providing housing so tenants don’t have to come up with down payments or commit to living in a place long term? Taking on risk by being legally responsible for housing the tenant(s)? Making improvements and maintaining the property? Forgoing other investments they could be making?
I think Russia's Article 51 defense for the invasion is, to be charitable, a stretch, and that the invasion is probably illegal. I say probably because I'm not a lawyer and it's a complicated matter of international law. Russia does at least have a cohesive argument. If anyone's curious, it has to do with defending the republics it recognized as independent, and then requiring the invasion to have a reasonable chance at that defense.

My view is that the US baited Putin into this by making repeated overtures about Ukraine joining NATO (while Zelenskyy has himself said that he was told privately it wouldn't be admitted). This happened as Putin repeatedly said that Ukraine's NATO membership was a red line for him. We saw the Cuban Missle Crisis and our reaction. To me, from the Russian perspective, this is akin to Russia making preparations for a deal to put nukes in Tijuana.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have spent the last 7 or 8 years shelling Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine, in violation of the (signed) Minsk accords. This is largely encouraged and participated in by forces that include entire units of Nazi sympathizers. We'd do well to bear in mind that from a uniquely Russian perspective, Nazism is often associated as much with being anti-Russian as it is anti-Jewish.

Then we have leaked audio of US politicians (Victoria Nuland) hand picking the Ukrainian leadership after the 2014 coup that appears to have been backed by the US, and the far-right Nazi groups, to oust their democratically-elected (pro-Russian) president. I won't even get into the Hunter Biden stuff except to say that the NYT recently said his laptop was real.

In sum, what Russia is doing is probably a war crime (war of aggression) and the whole situation is tragic. The US shares a lot of the blame, has done nothing but stoke the flames which is destroying Ukraine rather than push to broker a peace deal that includes the Ukrainian neutrality it had decided on anyway. The lack of open discussion about any of these issues is disheartening. I'm suspicious that the narrative being pushed by the US media has a lot more to do with the arms industry than a moral judgement by the US, which is shown through other ongoing conflicts (Yemen, Somalia) not to exist.
I gave a try to Twitter's Ad platform recently. Mother of god, they've built a giant machine behind the curtains. It has terrible UX, but I could, if I wanted to, target a U.S. Military retiree that likes creole food, located in Boston, enjoys watching Golf and uses iPhone 11 Pro with an older iOS version 14. The profiling of users, and the ad-tech machinery is insane. There is a auto-bidding machine, detailed analytics, website tracking scripts, conversion metrics, the works. I had no idea. Imagine you build something amazing, but no one knows about it – how do you get that thing across people that actually want it? It is a hard problem and from my little experiment with their advertisement platform, it is miraculous. Surprisingly, I've not seen any article from mainstream newspapers that exposes what kind of a goliath Big Tech's ad platform is.

You ought to sign up and see it for yourself. Meta & Google's Business Platform is similar if not more powerful.

After this revelation, 8000 people entirely makes sense.
As an immigrant, and therefore not beholden to either side, it is hard for me to distinguish whether your last line is with regard to Russia, or the US. Which is very much the point of the article.
TSX has never worked, and it seems a little over-ambitious in general. SGX has a few fatal flaws in its security model, and we have moved on to newer models there. The principle of tech debt applies to hardware as well as software, and I hope they come up with a new idea for transactional memory in future cores that actually works, and isn't so ambitious.