skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A modern renderer does rasterization followed by a sequence of post-processing steps that you can think of as compute dispatches (kernels) running one thread per pixel. The reality is often somewhat more complex, but that's a good first approximation.

Those steps tend to be local, so instead of running step 1 on the whole screen, then step 2 on the whole screen, and so on, you could run all steps on the top-left tile (of e.g. 128x128 pixels), then all steps on the next tile, and so on. The downside is that you'll likely have to compute some data in the boundary regions between tiles multiple times. The upside is that the bulk of intermediate data between post-processing steps never has to be written out to and read back from memory (modern render targets are too large to fit into traditional caches, though that may be different with the huge cache AMD has built for their latest GPUs).

The same principle can be applied to GPGPU algorithms that have similar locality. This tends to be discussed under the label of "kernel fusion".
I have no desire to waste time and brain on "look up Block lattice tech"
and I know that you tend to "take one for the team" in this kind of matter.

So. Block lattice tech: real or Malarkey?
And, as is always the question, to what extent is this one-off example representative of the totality of Facebook's efforts to stop the spread of misinformation?

Are 50% of the "censored" posts regular reporting? 1%? 0.00001%? Shouldn't a detail like that matter?

If I could make the rules, my rule for conversations about one-off examples would be that you have to immediately follow up by talking about how representative that example is of the phenomenon you are using it to illustrate.
Game rules in general are not copyrightable.

There were some lawsuits about Tetris. You can make a game with the rules like Tetris. But you cannot name it Tetris, and you cannot make it look too much like Tetris.
Russia’s Black Sea Flagship Sunk; Ukraine Claims Missile Strike Sank It
Good for you. No one cares.
Did the FDA say this?
> I think about Twitter occasionally and I'm always amazed that the company has thousands of employees.

Once a company gets big enough, 95% of an employees job is navigating the bureaucracy. So the head count goes way up.
Buying a company through a tender offer in order to replace the management is your textbook hostile takeover.
It's not normal in the UK to ever touch another car with your own. However I have heard that it happens in some towns/cities on the continent. I'm guessing they park on flat roads and leave the handbrake off. No idea how a car is supposed to escape if it's wedged between two others though.

As for dashcams, don't these normally switch off while the car is parked?
Unfortunately it also allows to rob other people of the fun, as there has been multiple Twitter bots spreading the future words. I think one even replied to people's Wordle score tweets.
I'm sure it consists of owning the libs and maybe other things.
> price will tank

making a subsequent buy/takeover even more easier?
Footnotes(1) not supported?

(1) This is a footnote. You don't need any fancy software to write a footnote.
This video has been on my "to watch" list for a long time, but I didn't know it was related to this topic. Now it's at the top, thanks!
It costs one billion dollar(often much more) to go from zero to market for a new pharmaceutical product. Often there even is no product at the end. Of course there has to be big payday if it succeeds.
Why are you taking the words from a press release as fact?

The EUA process is fairly straightforward. The fact they haven’t gone through it is extremely suspect.
What's the name of that phenomenon where you can't tell if someone is sarcastic or a true fanatic these days
iViewed your API keys
Unfortunately, the human rights and religious freedom are weaponised by the US while the US itself does not, in fact, tolerate 'fact finding' missions and questionings undertaken by others.

The US hosts the world's largest incarcerated population (disproportionately black), high crime rate, police brutality, systemic entrenched racism, corporate lobbying for favourable corporate taxations including the world's largest tax havens, etc etc while it disproportionately looks outwards towards countries.. especially India. THe US neither wants India to fail, but definitely does not want to succeed beyond a threshold - keeping India in a goldilocks range.

Jaishankar's was not 'revenge' - it would be childish to think so.
It is just pushback and getting a firmer grip against the US's weaponised human rights' as an issue. Two can speak the language - that is all.

India had never interfered... nay, even commented in the internal affairs of the US. THis might soon change. We might be seeing 'Black lives matter' posters on the Indian Embassy, spokespersons talking about Gun control and gun violence in schools, right of women to safe abortion, rights of LGBTQI+ etc.
> The acoustic warning signal is meant to warn other traffic participants of imminent danger - which includes the intend to overtake (outside of towns). There is no fine for that.

Honking before overtaking is completely fine, I know my rules. Imminent danger honking is allowed everywhere, even in towns. It's completely not allowed honking to mean "drive faster".

> Careful there: Your scenario does not exactly paint you as a hero

You are missing context, perhaps I should have given the full picture: The road IMHO wasn't suitable to drive at 50km/h. It was curvy with many parked cars on the sides. I wasn't trying to annoy anyone. I even started breaking earlier before turn so it wasn't a harder break, which may have saved us from an accident. Also 43 is nowhere near going "too slow". You need to drive 25 or less, so that it becomes a dangerous situation. The instructors would give you a warning in an exam before failing you if you do it twice, if you drive less than half the limit.

You can also drive 60km/h in a country road (limit 100km/h), and as long as you do not go below 50 for an extended period of time, you don't need to worry. If you are going slowly just to piss someone off, or you are creating a dangerous situation (for example, blocking the flow of the traffic when there's cross-traffic), that's a different story.
>> This looks more like a hobby to me than a business decision. Hobbies are fine as long as they don’t distract from the job

If he’s taking the company private the future of the company should be irrelevant to you right? The only thing that matters is whether or not you think the price is fair.

>> Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. That’s not a “tremendous potential” premium.

He believes the potential is predicated on taking it private and clearing house. The IPO price also seems irrelevant. Whether or not you think Twitter can exceed that price again is relevant.

Given it was at ~$70 last year he seems to be coming in too low for me as I think Twitter can get back to that point relatively quickly.
You're not wrong, but there is definitely a niche for areas with much higher ratio of mowing to gardening work.
If sending a car to space out of spite didn’t reveal his true nature to his followers, I’m not sure what will.
I’d presume he means tremendous potential if he’s allowed to take it over.

“Gimme your stagnant site, at a premium, and I will fix it.”

That said, I’d vote against, as well.
There was never a right for your opinion to be published on a particular platform, nor is this free speech.
So if he purports that Twitter now limits freedom of speech, the only thing he can mean by that is hate speech, dangerous medical misinformation, conspiracy bs, or calls to violence.

I've always had a gut feeling that Musk is politically on the far right spectrum farther than most people would believe, but now that he has joined the ranks of these misguided new right-wing "muh freedom of speech"-warriors, who never had any point to begin with, it's a strong indicator rather than just a feeling.
> There is a lot of evidence that platforms which de-prioritize moderation have trouble attracting revenue and experience significant compliance costs.

I think Musk would moderate bots more given his experience. But people less maybe.

> use Tesla to bail himself out of Solar City’s troubles

He didn't run Solar City I don't think.
All speech must be allowed. The problem to solve is the scale and speed of diffusion.

Most speech used to be confined into the room it was spoken or into a circle of friends. Damage was limited. Now everybody can chat with everybody else. The damage can bring down countries in a few years.
I don't like 3-2-1. It's pretty fragile. I don't know how any sys admins can sleep over 1 remote backup.

My setup has 4-2-2 and using 2 different backup implementations for the remote, so bugs in them wouldn't be corrupting entire backups unknowingly at the same time.

Apparently the 1 local and 2 remotes are having generations of incremental backups as well.
OK... who cares? Who's to say that your world view / morality is more correct than the view in the NYPost article?
That is the thing. I would never bet against him but I don’t think he will pull this through
Because artificial scarcity is artificial.
Very useful info there, thank you for sharing. I'm surprised there are no comments on software itself. o_O
Ive got tinnitus and sensitive hearing, so if possible i have some music playing in the background all the time. Mostly "classic rock", eclectic bits of other things popular in the last 30 years, a lot of classical.

$ du -bhs ~/Music/
86G

Before CD ripping was a thing I had a couple of the Sony "CD Jukebox" 200 disc changers that I bought broke and repaired so I could have a constant stream of selected, commercial free music. It's gotten so much easier now.
I was impressed to see a decent traveling salesman estimate algorithm in my last romp through a slicer's source code.
Let's not get hyperbolic; it's the largest political popularity contest in the US. In India, 600 Million people voted in the 2019 Indian General Election. Eurovision is also bigger than the US General Election, at least by viewership (I couldn't find televoting numbers).
And a TV show in France called Motus since forever.
pretty crazy to see the sheer unadulterated terror that the mere possibility of free speech absolutism instills in people. this way of thinking was not common like sixteen years ago—what changed?
There's no copyright to the rules of the game itself, but its implementation as a work of Javascript is certainly copyrightable, in the same way that the manual of a board game is copyrightable.

There may also be a copyright interest in the "target" and "guessable" word lists as collections, but I'm not certain of the applicable subtleties.
> See: the sad story of Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Normally “Really? I’ve never heard of it.” isn’t good evidence, but when you’re asserting that Moot was one of the most popular social websites in the world it does have some bearing.
Citation? What are you talking about?
When I hear people bag on him I ask a few questions..

Name one man who has done more for EV and by extension the environment?

Name one man who has done more for SelfDriving, and by extension road safety?

Space travel?

He might fail at half what he does, but yeah..
> out of spite

What are you even talking about?

The car was just a mass simulator. They had to pick something, why not make it something fun?
Huh? The authorities are the ones who stopped each of those. With regulation.
>Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial

I'm not sure why everyone is talking about this as though it's on the horizon? The article doesn't mention "free speech" as a goal, it mentions:

- selling account privileges

- making HQ a homeless shelter

- edit button

In other words, monetization and PR.

The major free speech issue on Twitter is not whether certain people are allowed to be on Twitter. It's whether Twitter enables its users in carrying out harassment campaigns against people whose speech they don't like. These campaigns often feature unethical and fraudulent behavior, e.g. fake anonymous Yelp reviews complaining about an employee, encouraging/performing vandalism of the business, phone calls in the middle of the night, borderline slanderous exaggerations sent through anonymous channels, etc. It's quite misleading to characterize these internet mobs as "people exercising their right to criticism", and they tend to rely on the ability of people to anonymously take action against someone who is not anonymous. Fixing it would require more controls on Twitter, not fewer.
But what if authorities would never have been believed? If everyone just dumped their trash into the countryside, drove 120 mph in cities, gave a damn about building codes or safety measures?
>A lot of the "free speech" complaints about social media amount to complaints about social media platforms adding content warnings about [alleged] sensational lies or penalising their reputation anyway.

Exactly. And I would add, nobody who claims they are a "free speech absolutist" can stay consistent with that declaration after even one or two simple questions.

Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine? Because we need to expose them to healthy debate for the benefit of societal progress? The answer typically is "well that's not speech, that's _____", and then it's a debate over why there's a special different word for the type of speech they want to prohibit.
As somebody from the first world who has had the experience of moderating Internet forums… free speech in the sense of “the government generally shouldn’t control people’s speech, with limited exceptions” is good and necessary. Free speech in the sense of “everybody should be forced to platform every idea” is silly IMO. Left alone user content rapidly devolves into the most low-effort salient content - flame wars, political proselytizing and porn, mostly. If you want your platform to be about anything other than those, you need curation and moderation. This is key for a good user experience.

Note that you’re choosing to spend your time on HN (a relatively strongly moderated forum) instead of a less moderated forum like 8chan’s /b/.
With respect, the handbill or pamphlet was about the most subversive means of communication he saw, in an age when literacy wasn't universal.

The social media morass is something entirely different.

There is no precedent for the mass hysteria of something as dumb as Qanon. Dead presidents dead children emerging from the grave to save the world?

Oh wait...Jesus...David..rocks...easter.

Nvm.
> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial once you ensure that someone is not gaming the system, i.e. someone pretending to be more than one person.

Regardless of whether or not it would be a good idea for Twitter to remove moderation, personally my feeling is that if someone says they're a free speech absolutist and they oppose burner accounts and anonymity, then they're not actually a free speech absolutist.

It's become more common in certain circles to say that free speech is fine as long as people have a persistent ID and reputation, and I do like reputation systems to a certain degree -- but I want to point out that "a persistent ID and a reputation system" is just "social consequences" with extra steps.

I sometimes suspect that the people who propose those systems are (unintentionally) arguing for a world with even more self-policing about what people say online, and I have over time come to suspect that a world with lots of communities that have strict moderation policies and that are occasionally closed off entirely, but that generally allow more anonymous accounts -- is probably a world with more free speech (and hopefully less free speech of a harmful kind) than a world where everybody gets one voice and it's tracked everywhere. Again that's a separate conversation, but the point is that if your definition of free speech absolutism is that anyone can say anything they want wherever they are without social or political consequences, then (regardless whether or not that's a good idea) persistent identifiers are a step backwards from that goal.
Yeah. Tangentially, I wonder if free speech absolutism can only hold so long as shame still exists in wide enough numbers. Psychopaths occur probably too frequently…
> the rest will be payed out

Yeah, because you're purchasing them.
I guess the solution would be tying your identify to your account. If you do something illegal then you can be held accountable. The problem is, how many of twitters users would vanish if they suddenly needed to be identifiable?
It works both ways, free speech with global range allows fringe extremists to disrupt democracies.

Just look how russia uses this free speech.
Free speech is ok but not with unlimited range.
> Who's to say that your world view / morality is more correct than the view in the NYPost article?

The platform you’re using to blast it, within the confines of their platform.
W3schools is wonderful, it's got great primers on a whole lot of languages and libraries with concise, clear explanations and examples.
Right, better control of the index type can help you say what you mean, and help the typechecker catch more mistakes.

If I have an array representing a single-byte lookup table, it would be nice if I could say that the array's type is array-indexed-by-u8 rather than array-indexed-by-usize.

Ada did this well: it even lets you declare an array whose index is some enumerated type.
Yes, it takes a few seconds per follicle, and you’ve got to do it three or four times over half a year on each follicle. It’s obviously expensive and takes quite a while.

For most people, IPL or Laser is probably a better option.
That sounds like the opposite of free speech absolutism. This is the government silencing speech!
I have created a webapp (very ugly, but it works) to control my bar lighting. It's a wall of 3 rows of ~12 bottles. Each bottle can be highlighted individually, per group, or I have configured a few animations.

It's 3 bands of Adafruit Neopixels, which means I could play with colors as well, and it's driven by a Raspberry Pi 1 (accessible on local network only).

Fun fact: it runs on a computer PSU: the Raspberry is low power enough that it run on the stand-by rail, and the PSU is only turned on (by the Pi) when the lighting is on.

Due to how custom and crude it is, I never considered open-sourcing it. It's a fun party trick when I have guests though.
BTW, asking the question "what is the difference between power and significance/p-value" is a good litmus test for detecting insufficient competence in statistics. As the author puts it, unless you know this stuff well you shouldn't really be juding the "scientific" numbers.

In fact you're probably (probably!) better off building a good intuition within the domain and then improvising the tests, in the sense that this way you're less likely to arrive at bogus conclusions, as opposed to someone who thinks they'll just apply some formula like this was a high school maths problem - here we plug in some magic that speaks back the truth. I've seen it time and again that (especially senior) people can rapidly and accurately judge the results of things based on very "un-scientific" improvised methods and numbers. YMMV.
I would say that patents and copywrite are orthogonal.

A patent, hopefully, captures a truely new and original idea. Where as as copywrite encompass actual work.

One huge problem with patentable ideas is that the idea should not obvious to those in the field, but intails a proof by contradiction. If the idea was obvious to one person, surely it was obvious to many. And is more clearly obvious to anyone who has seen the idea.

Trade marks are only to protect branding, they stop mimicry that doesn’t violate copyright.

Trade secrets are the real secret sauce. They are legally protected and by definition are unpatenable. It’s the only way to keep a competitive edge.
Trump didn't win because he personally had social media accounts from which he spread his message - canvassing by his followers (until they kept going Nazi and getting banned) were what was effective. Trump's own social media use has been a net negative for him, he mostly just rants and shitposts. If he'd been banned from Twitter earlier, he might have gotten more accomplished.

Also, coverage of Trump by the mainstream media was likely far more effective than social media at getting him elected. If nothing else, it provided the material that got spread across social media.

Obama's victory was due in large part to social media as well, but not due to Obama's personal accounts.
He was hung for trying to get German aid for the Easter uprising in Ireland during WW1. Literally Treason.
Moot is the nick name for the founder of 4chan.
Sure, but my prediction is that the human civilization is likely to never have a total societal collapse.
That's a good example of how just a few malicious knobs ruin the fun for everyone else. I suppose blocking those bots isn't difficult but the fact that someone went out of their way to code one is so sad.
Well, we have seen how authoritarian repression of alternative viewpoints turned out, with the imprisonment of Galileo, execution of Thomas More, horrors of Stalin and Hitler and too many more to mention.

And we have seen what immense improvements of the conditions of man came through a free society like the founding of USA, with freedom of speech and eventual total abolishment of slavery. (Slavery, which up to then more-or-less had been part of the vast majority of civilizations, from Asia to Africa, to America, to Europe).

And now you argue to run that experiment again, just to be sure?
Replacement power supply for the Toshiba T1200 laptop computer
Experiments can detect all sorts of things, including new unanticipated subtle experimental artifacts.
They don't have to start from the beginning and loop through in the same order. They can just select a random new word each day, possibly with a constraint that it hasn't been used for at least 100 days.
He bought 4.6% of Twitter in the two weeks he went from 5% to 9.6% when he filed. That's not super slow.
The main draw for Truth Social is not posting on it. If he was "truthing" 50 times a day, they would be doing a lot better.
I suspect some negotiation is going on. The main content creator wants a bigger slice of the business.
He couldn't have just joined the board first?
Well... Aren't the twitter bots then the bad actor?

I wouldn't complain that wikipedia exists when I am answering a quiz...

I don't think a more complex wordle implementation would solve this. If the whole world is guessing the same word, there will always be someone that tries to spoil it for others, just because they can.
This would be a fantastic product for my young son Lucas
Private company and free speech sounds like an oxymoron.

This isn't free speech that's benevolent dictatorship at most.
The most American take possible, I guess.
Is there much of a difference?
Definitely is. I'm just wondering if they can move closer to that model.
Because Russia has used its free speech how?

Internally they ban all opposition media, which is not free speech, it's only hearing from propaganda.

Considering the events of the last 2 months, has Russia really managed to turn the west pro Russia or anti Ukraine at all?

I literally don't understand what you are trying to say.
I used the term "dark" as in unshared, and as a result, you use it the way you like it.

Also, the term looks like it has both meanings.

Having a "dark fiber infrastructure" means having a web of unconnected fiber cables point to point, but since you connect your own devices to it, you don't have to share it with others.

As a result, its presence and its state is only known to you (i.e. it's in the dark).

I understand that my usage is not completely true, but in that context, it's not a flat-out blatant mistake either.