skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics, and originally lived in the Math department for about 2000 years. Only recently, in the last 30 years or so, has computer science been mistakenly equated with programming or mistakenly been believed to have something to do with fixing desktop computers or building networks.

Programming is not mathematics, nor is it computer science. Programming is programming, and it is most like the recipes in cooking, which no one would ever confuse with math. If one wants to be a programmer, the thing to do is learn programming languages, no degree required. OTOH, if one wants to model the weather, or model traffic, or model society, or model the galaxy, or work in informatics, or hunt for weaknesses in the genetic code of some virus, or really, generally, solve complex problems of any ilk, then study computer science, because that is what computer scientists do.

Do not bother with CS if you want to work with computers, or be a computer tech, or systems administrator. Do not bother with CS if you just want to be a programmer, really, it'd be a waste of time, sort of like getting a MD because you want to be a RN, but this metaphor is not apt because there is no hierarchy like that in technology space. The confusion of programming with computer science is such a sensitive one, and a lot of schools now have Software Engineering departments. IMO, calling it engineering is being a little too kind to programming, even if we call a program an engine, it's really not. Also, there is no license available to engineer software, yet all other engineers need a license to work.

That being said, a Computer Science curriculum will entail learning a lot of programming, but that still does not mean that computer science is programming. But before learning program languages, in CS, one will study algorithms, and I believe those do fall under the scope of CS.

Here is another bad metaphor: You'll have to learn a good amount of Trigonometry in order to be able to do much Calculus, yet Calculus is not Trigonometry. Now, one can do good computer science without ever learning any programming language, and without ever touching a computer. But a computer is a tool, and the good analogy is that the computer is to the computer scientist what the telescope is to the astronomer. To be clear, though it was once so, astronomers do not build telescopes, nor are they necessarily expert in the construction of or even function of a telescope. The important part is they look through it, and that is how it is used.
Wow this book is beautiful! Thank you for sharing.
Finnish Defence Forces
I can confirm Microsoft ads (Bing ads or whatever they're called) are even worse. We shut off an underperforming campaign and they were automatically restarted, repeatedly, until we disabled the entire account.
Former Excel developer here. In Excel 97, the difference between the values needed to be less than 1e-16 times the magnitudes of the operands to be considered equal. It makes sense since such a small proportion is unlikely to occur by chance through arithmetic without the values being "equal" in the original base.
His companies and investments have done well by VC standards. It's probably a "not great" idea to refuse his offer.

I also understand his point about mismanagement from a anecdotal user perspective: I hate the platform but not the concept.

- Horrendous UX (Why can't I see the context of a tweet?)
- Seemingly crappy bot policing (Really? You, "Megan, Warrior, mother, wife, respect all animals, bless our troops, go cowboys [football][usaflag][fingerhorns]" really have 4138 followers and 4087 followed? Plus, the first follower I click has the same corny bio style, 4112 followers and 4056 followed, and only retweets political tweets?)
- Creates aggressive echo chambers and lopsided arguments. (Influential user blasts another, their army of followers comment and like each others comments, blasted user's entire dialogue gets buried under army's despite having valid arguments.)
- I'm sick of seeing the thoughts of politicians and celebrities.
Substantiation needed.
I made a sleep timer for closing tabs. I couldn't find one so I made it. It bothers me that streaming services will keep playing after I fall asleep and wake me up with a blaring action or musical scene. So with this script I can set how tired I am and after I fall sleep, the program will close the current tab and blank the display to keep the light down.

I don't consider it a program nor do I consider myself a programmer. But man, it was so satisfying to have completed it.
Let the “420” aspect of the share price offer be lost on no one…
> Do you then transiently get all the achievements of all safety critical software that was then programmed with it?

It's possible to write incorrect code and compile it with a correct compiler, so I don't think so. It's more like a citation that proven correct programs can use to say "I wrote this program correctly (see my own proof), and I compiled it correctly (see citation), thus I have a correct executable file".

> I guess the Rust memory safety guarantees are based on some proofs?

People have retroactively come up with formal proofs for much of it, but I believe the initial design was just based on intuition not a proof. For unsafe code some of the exact details of the memory model are still being worked out too (and thus definitely aren't proven correct).
How do you know it wasn’t rate limited?
For starters, GP's comment is absolutely not out of line, as explained in their sibling comment to this.

Second, a large amount of your comment history is just telling people how "out of line" their comments are. There is a downvote button for that. Stop spamming it. It is you who is out of line.
> Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing.

It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space.

> Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. They sure did on Twitter.

Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high.

> Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad.

Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"?

> What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that.

It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.
Honestly, this challenged my view a bit, because I am a person who believes a private company has a right to moderate content, and I think you're right, I've been resting on that view because largely companies seem to have not done anything insane (IMO) with that.

Looking at it now, I honestly think it's totally okay for Elon Musk to buy Twitter and change fundamentally what its policies are. I think it'd be devastating for the platform, and I think a competitor would swoop in and scoop up the vast majority of folks who would find a "free speech site" repugnant, but I believe that's up to the platform to decide (right up until the platform violates a law, of course).

Out of all of this, I'm just kicking myself for not being that competitor. There's a ton of turmoil here, I think a Twitter-That-Is-The-Same-Except-Not-Named-Twitter could do real well right now.
> and wants to see Twitter add value to society in some way.

Define "add value", because otherwise I'm laughing hard at this notion.

If you define it purely as "produce a product that people enjoy using or find useful", then sure, it adds value.

But at a higher level, asking if it's a net positive on society as a whole, and I'd say Twitter will never succeed at that. Social media has caused a breakdown in political discourse where people no longer seek to understand, but instead seek to "win", and Twitter's short message limit completely eliminated any possibility of actual conversations in favor of 140-character[0] zingers that are nothing more than ridiculous straw men. Nuance is a thing of the past.

[0] I know it's 280 now, but for the longest time it was 140, and I'm not sure the difference really matters. It's still incredibly limiting.
The Curry-Howard isomorphism doesn't say that an interesting proof corresponds to a program anyone would care about (other than as an equivalent to the proof), nor that an interesting program corresponds to a proof anyone would care about (other than as an equivalent to the program).

In practice, writing programs and finding proofs feel like quite different activities, and at least in my experience of doing both I almost never try to write a program by thinking "how could I prove that such-and-such a type is nonempty" and I literally never try to prove something by finding a corresponding type and writing a program that computes or represents something of that type.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism is a beautiful theorem, and as you say it inspires some nice methods of automated proving / proof-checking, but I don't think it says anything much about the relationship between the programming and theorem-proving activities that actual humans engage in.
This is great, and we should celebrate China for doing this. I would genuinely love to see this kind of legislative will in Western society.

My main question is that it seems very hard to distinguish between a legitimate recommendation system and a system that is designed to capture your attention. For instance, I like being able to see related items on Amazon when evaluating a purchase. That recommendation empowers me as a consumer.
China can afford to make the law vague because the regulator will never be challenged in its interpretation. That wouldn't work elsewhere, I think.

That being said, not all is great. China grants rights to people over their data while making it clear that they don't own any of it. This legislation is part of a broader regulatory framework designed to give the state a true monopoly free of all limits. This should give us pause.
That's aesthetic and not defined rules
In this thread:

https://xkcd.com/927/
Well that was fast
Social media, especially in a narrow sense (e.g. Facebook and Twitter are "social media", forums and chat programs are not) is not necessary for humans to interact. Nor is the current model of social media - with "influencers", viral content, and a strong incentive for performative interaction - necessarily the best one for society.

Internet communication has value to humanity. I'm not so sure that's true about social media as it exists today.
It’s amazing to me that people really think someone like Musk would a good steward of free speech. This idea that the obscenely wealthy are going to come in and save us from ourselves, if only we can let them be in charge, is a tale as old as time, yet people keep believing it.
Sorry, but you've been duped by supplement sellers' marketing material.

Xlear is just a branded Xylitol nasal spray. You can go buy it right now if you want. The regulatory action only limited them from claiming that it was effective against COVID without evidence, which is a very good thing. Xylitol is a cheap, common ingredient that supplement makers have been trying to push as a wonder drug for a long time. Xylitol nasal spray does not appear to be an effective COVID treatment.

COVID was a gold rush for supplement marketers. Everyone who wanted to sell more supplements was looking for an angle to suggest that their supplement might be helpful. Pushing press releases to Yahoo Finance and Business Wire is an easy way to get your name out there.

The only hit for "xlear" and "covid" on PubMed is this one case report written by authors with financial ties to Xlear: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33173650/

They only used 3 mild-moderate COVID patients and zero controls:

> We present a series of three mild-moderate risks, symptomatic, COVID-19 patients, treated with the intranasal combination, as an adjuvant to their ongoing treatment, with rapid clinical improvement and shorten time to negativization on repeat intranasal swab test via PCR.

Their claim that it shortened time to negativization doesn't make any sense because they didn't have a control group to compare against.

This is junk supplement marketing material pretending to be science. Please don't promote it.
There is a 7th stage, by the time you reach 6th stage, there is so much evolution in the tech stack (next k8s etc.) that you spin off all the new teams/products stop using this and they start from stage 1
You're not necessarily wrong, but Twitter's moderation policy is already basically terrible and I have very little confidence that they'll be able to improve it significantly in the future with or without Musk. Most of the moderation policies that they are proposing are regularly co-opted to target oppressed or minority groups. They don't seem to be particularly consistent or great about catching abuse in the first place. The site's structure itself seems to encourage bad actors.

It's certainly the case that Musk could potentially make that worse, but I guess I have so little confidence in Twitter's ability to get better on that front that I'm not sure it matters all that much in the long run.

Better moderation on these platforms requires a large re-think in how we approach moderation in the first place, and it requires a more socially responsible perspective about the platform's purpose. I don't think that Musk being in charge or not will make that happen, and if he does turn Twitter into even more of a cesspool, then maybe that'll encourage alternatives.

I'm not an accelerationist when it comes to social media, but I think that Musk/Twitter's attitudes towards free speech online are often both naive and incompetent and the site continuing to worsen might be the only way to get people off of it; and I'm not sure what blocking Musk actually preserves about the site (other than possibly that Musk might push for more aggressive monetization). There are people right now who rely on it that would need to find other hosting, and that does genuinely stink. But... I mean, it's gonna get worse for them regardless.

> Silicon Valley social media companies have taken an extra-ordinarily long and painful path to understanding how they need to handle speech on their platforms

I don't want to be pessimistic, but I don't really feel like social media companies have learned how to handle speech or that they've become competent about doing moderation at scale. I don't think there ever was a point where they figured it out. If we've learned anything it's that moderation at a global scale is kind of unworkable, and that's why having smaller communities that pay more attention to the content they host is so important. I'm particularly pessimistic about the possibility of AI/algorithmic moderation (which many of these companies are leaning into more and more), mostly because I don't see a ton of evidence that it's good enough at scale to replace human moderation.

So I'm not worried about Musk bringing back systematic misinformation or troll farms or accidentally enabling genocide because as far as I can tell Twitter already has that problem; I don't think Musk can bring it back because I don't think it ever went away.
Kind of a ridiculous statement. "If you support any laws whatsoever, then you also support laws forcing Russian viewpoints, laws against vaccines, etc."
Just wanted to say thanks for writing the comment I was too lazy to :-)
"Bad" platforms aren't bad because "we disagree with them."

They're bad because they're lying to people en masse and inciting rebellion.

And yes, I absolutely think that behavior that reaches that bar should be squelched. The dangers of enabling the spread of misinformation are entirely too visible in today's society.

The slippery slope argument is garbage in this case. No one has been banning political speech from major platforms. Heck, they bent over backwards to allow Trump and company to say the most outrageous things for years before finally stepping in and putting a stop to it.

And Parler being deplatformed for enabling the public organization of rebellion against the United States hardly seems like an "oh no, we're becoming Nazis!" moment.

It's only the most extreme views that result in deplatforming; "your view on taxes is different than mine" will never rise to that level, so there's no slippery slope.

So in what case can we justify enabling platforms to lie to people and incite violence? It simply can't be done.
If I remember correctly, Google put a ton of resources into a Facebook competitor and failed spectacularly. A well funded, immediate millions of users, and an unrivaled ad network… fell on its face (for reasons of course, but none nullify the above facts).

Now, please make the case for any startup to compete with Google’s resources.

If the only case you can make is time, there is a problem with this monopolistic system.
I guess the idea was that it's very confusing for non-technical people, and very easy to misplace..

(sorry if your message was accompanied by an "/s" -- I didn't see any)
"inflation" surcharge... one would think inflation would be baked into the price already.
I'm in the same boat, FWIW. I really did not understand the point at first, but I love symbols now. I only vaguely understand the point, even after reading this thread, but I like using them.
Not long before Elon bought a 9% stake, one of the largest satire accounts on twitter was suspended for a joke. They are literally censoring humor and that may have been the final straw.

Also worth noting that he was one of the ACLU's biggest donors when they were still focused on protecting free speech and liberty.
Well the former Democratic PAC leader now Facebook PR executive had that story pulled until such time it could be “fact checked”. Still waiting 16 months later.

https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000
My favorite is just having the console open while visiting the web. It is amazing the amount of information devs "forget" to remove from sending to the console in production. A lot of console vomit is from JS frameworks. I don't know if there's a switch that can tell them to shut up in production or not, but it's one thing I look out for on anything I work on.
> I suspect most of the commenters supporting the right of a private company to moderate content is completely contingent on what those moderation policies are.

I'm one of those commenters, and I'd point to Gab, Parler etc as companies who are already doing exactly that and are well within their rights to do so. And of course, their free speech (curation and flagging) is balanced by their users' freedom of association: if twitter radically changes their moderation policies, they could risk driving away their userbase and even their developers.
For services you run where you do ip <-> identity authentication you have to make sure that you're only listening on the tailscale interface right? ie, if your server is listen on 0.0.0.0 then you may be open to IP spoofing?
But Spideys tricks tend to boil down to sleight of hand - something the author claims that mentalism is not, and alludes that it is a way of reading peoples thoughts.
3 seems like the sane option to me... That's what I remember most sites doing back in the day if they weren't going for 2. Have a top-level "directory" page with individual pages linking back up to it and to the homepage, rather than having pages that link to literally nothing at all.
PyCharm 2022.1 Release Notes
You see, I think Twitter is different things to different people. I use it quite a lot - for putting out news about my local swimming club, the school’s parent teacher association and at work communicating with customers. I find it great, and don’t have to deal with toxicity because I don’t go out looking for it.
One aspect of building a business is resilience: What happens when things break?

Because things break.

I personally would not use Google business products for a startup. They're fine for established shops where when Google fucks up your account, they 'know' who you are. If you're a small-$ nobody, the support policy is "sucks to be you".

But everyone has different risk tolerances and fond feelings for certain companies. More important than that choice is to ask, "what do I do when Google/whoever breaks, or I have to generate a quote and the connectivity is down", and so on.

Speaking of which, is Atlasssian still rebuilding?
Ask HN: Ways of interviewing you found to be predictive of performance?
"Transitory inflation", isn't that what the fed said?
> U.N. World Food Program executive director David Beasley did respond to Musk's original tweet last month, clarifying that "$6B will not solve world hunger..."
Thanks for your comments.

Optimizing the render part in insertion and deletion is also difficult. Some nodes might have user-level views, so some of them won't be visible to some other users. So you can't just label the nodes like this is "left" or "right" of that record.

My experience with a similar problem: Instead of putting the rendering part to the insertion and deletion (nested set model), I was using a simple nginx file based cache. This is a trade off and I chose the application layer to be "consistent" and "reliable", over "being fast". Keeping the data integrity is difficult when you have a nested set model and it's also expensive to doing that calculation during the insertion. Sometimes you need a message broker to handle such an expensive query, because it's not safe to do it within a request-response lifecycle, even if you do have a transactional database, there's always a barrier of "request time out".
And likely be terrible and would get no market share. I don’t know anyone who lives in excel all day who would be ok with the jankiness of an electron app
Meh- power is power. Fine, how about extreme positions like Jesus is god, earth is round, earth is not center of universe, slavery should be outlawed, women should not have to wear hijab, ...
> We have a WhatsApp group where they can ask whether something is dodgy. They don't use it for chitchat, so anything that comes through, I treat urgently.

I really like that idea.
> I think Musk would moderate bots more given his experience. But people less maybe.

Maybe.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31006124
Post: "FAA, do your damn job"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30943466

https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-do-your-damn-job/

Can your Congressional rep and the FAA and ask why this isn't done yet.
Oh nice, the only thing keeping me from building an RV or something is space.
Good point. The spot price is definitely not the most accurate measure of this probability. For liquid stocks with advanced derivates it's probably possible to find a better probability using one of those advanced derivatives.
Seeing as Australia was used as a prison colony, I'd have thought they'd be much more likely to be against a strong ruling class.
> It should be spoof resistance by virtue of the fact that every node on a Tailscale network sets up public key authenticated wireguard tunnel directly to any peer it’s trying to contact.

innernet does exactly that but that doesn't help with spoofed packets arriving through some other network interface, as long as you don't explicitly tell your server (in this case Minecraft) to listen exclusively on wg0.

Hence my question.
Elon has Twitter in his Steam backlog.