skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Taking from the Rust book,

"In addition, unsafe does not mean the code inside the block is necessarily dangerous or that it will definitely have memory safety problems: the intent is that as the programmer, you’ll ensure the code inside an unsafe block will access memory in a valid way."

Although it appears I stand corrected in regards to Rustonomicon, as it seems to adopt the position that unsafe should apply to more than memory corruption bugs and failed to find the sentence I was looking for.

> Yes, it is pretty good. It was pretty great the last few times you "forgot" about this too.

I never forget about it, from my point of view they are oversold, and will keep arguing they aren't enough for distributed computing deployment scenarios with heavy use of acess to process external shared resources.

Fearless concurrecy isn't something I care about when accessing database rows from multiple threads across database connections, writing to NUMA regions across process and so forth, shared storage,....

Races are still bound to happen in such scenarios, if care is not taken, and fearless concurrency is of little help in such cases.
Instead of hundred dollar licenses, you have to pay hundred dollar subscription fees. I don’t see it as improvement.
If you're celerating that "only" 15% of people believe the most obvious bullshit anyone could possibly cook up, then your plan is flawed.
Yes, the people who run these platforms don't have any idea what it means either.
Elon will be able to remove 90% and turn twitter HQ into a homeless shelter. SF and the world will be better off.
Mill is one of my favorite philosophers, but his ideas on free speech need to be updated due to the internet. The amount of power technology gives us would have been inconceivable to him. There's no doubt in my mind the On Liberty would be a completely different book if he published it today.
At a certain point, it becomes more efficient to consider it societies problem.

If bad actors in person went door-to-door attempting to break in by picking locks, would you say that it is purely the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure that their locks are strong enough?
The US has done some truly terrible things too - but that doesn't mean everything they do is evil, nor does it mean every American is evil.

Consider that for the past 5-10 years we in the west have been bombarded with anti-Chinese news stories, and "red danger" is reaching new, dizzying heights; propaganda works both ways.
Beats buying another middle-management Porsche. haha.

Love your username.
> This is the very reason why you never give a bully or a narcissist a single inch.

If you are married to the person surely the goal should be to find some middle ground.
You've set up your own false dichotomy, and have done it in literally the next sentence after accusing someone else of doing the same. Amazing.

The situation is nuanced. It's not black and white–it's not easy. There is some balance to be struck on free speech. Some speech should be protected (dissent against the government), some should be forbidden (inciting a riot), and it's a thorny ever evolving problem to figure out what exactly defines those terms.
Google TPUs are inspiring everyone. Dieter Fox confirmed at Stanford HAI, NVidia's investing big in cloud accelerators too ;)

http://nvdla.org/primer.html
>This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open.

What is Musk's definition of open? How is that any better than the status quo? Because your bias happens to overlap with Musk's? Given his treatment of whistleblowers and employees at his current companies it's not at all clear that he actually values openness and free speech.
> Personally, I'm hoping all this share-everything is just a trend, that will pass by itself.

I think it definitely has passed, at least in my environment. I see less people sharing inane things, and most of the time it's done they use things like stories, which are temporary and with less feedback (no "like button" on Instagram stories, for example, only messages), and more organic (the same way some people talk about whatever they ate in person, they share it with their friends with these tools).
> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial once you ensure that someone is not gaming the system

First and foremost gaming seems to be nigh on unavoidable.

Secondly and most importantly, "absolutism" is not a good thing. I know I'll get downvotes but it needs to be said: some speech is not healthy for society, primarily hate speech.

And we have that today in Fox News -- actively promoting hate speech and helping to widen the divide in the US.

edit: yes, much news is garbage (CNN et al), but my point remains that speech designed to foster hate of others is not healthy and welcome dialog in this regard.

Divide and conquer for the win.
Why is it not useful? From eyeballing it it looked like the same file I built from our Fogbugz data to import our historic cases into Jira. I'll carve out some time to try doing an import into a new project to see if it loads properly.
And do you think an environment where undesirable ideas are suppressed would be conducive to believers changing their minds? Or do you think maybe those ideas would become further entrenched and evolve into QAnon and vaccine microchip theory?
No doubt about that, but Spotify doesn't place itself as a privacy respecting company. Also i think your last question was a bit of a 'what about' trick.
Hmm... A chair kind of works for the purpose. If you sit down, and get both feet off the ground, then you can indeed pull your pants up both legs simultaneously, most of the way, until the waistband reaches the point where butt meets chair. Then you have to stand back up to raise them the rest of the way. But then you might end up standing on the bottom part of the pant legs (shorts would work better here), in which case you'd probably stand on one leg to raise one side, then stand on the other leg to raise the other side; that can be avoided with some effort and pulling them up as far as possible while sitting, but...

Overall, the process seems mildly uncomfortable, and not faster or better than putting the pants on one leg at a time. Victory is only achieved when the new, both-legs-at-once approach is clearly better.
I don’t find that to be the case.
I do remind myself that most people are followers. The leaders among us need to help lead others. I would like people to stop berating 'Social Media' because that is a general category and instead berate the specific corporate, AI, state affiliated social media platforms where the problems lie. Free social media such as those in the fediverse do not have the same problems and don't deserve to be lumped in with them. They have their own problems but much fewer.
Musk with a lot of help of others and a lot of government subsidies you mean. The same subsidies he now things aren't needed, that others don't need subsidies because he doesn't need them anymore. Note this is based on his public comments, not his actual actions as his actions show he still loves subsides.

I suggest that someone who can spend 40 billion of a social media platform doesn't need taxpayers to give him quite as much assistance as he gets.
> In the real world those are your only two options.

This is completely ahistorical. For most of human history, across time and space, the reality on the ground has been some mixture of free speech and some limits on speech.

Of course, if you're an absolutist who insists that if there is ANY limit on speech, then there is no freedom of speech, then sure, there's only two choices. Very, very few humans that have ever lived view the world in this way.
> The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it.

The logical conclusion of this is speech should be regulated. And if speech is regulated, the next question is by whom? Good luck trying to get people to agree on this and even more good luck having this not be abused by those in charge.

What you will end up with is a dictatorship like China and Russia.
And it is even easier to convince someone who holds a correct opinion that their opinion is wrong, if you ban and suppress correct opinion.
Abuse is spam, doxxing, fraud, etc. Very narrow. I don't think this should include something like banning someone for saying "learn to code" because its a "targeted harassment campaign" [0]. However you can pose with the severed head of a sitting US president and that'll be okay and still standing up today [1] . Come on.

[0] https://reason.com/2019/03/11/learn-to-code-twitter-harassme...

[1] https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1323893513226870786
What's the practicality of knowing that there's infinite number of primes?
Looks an awful lot like the difficult process of trying to give an infant eye drops.
I don't rename it, I release a new updated dataset. However, each dataset is a superset of the previous one, so you can always reconstruct the old one and thus 'Danbooru2018', 'Danbooru2019', 'Danbooru2020', 'Danbooru2021' etc have exact well-defined meanings that never change, and if you don't happen to have a copy of Danbooru2018 sitting around, you can just download Danbooru2021, unpack the Danbooru2018 metadata from the archive tarball & delete the post-Danbooru2018 images, and you now have a bit-for-bit copy of Danbooru2018.

Also, if you want to just discuss the general concept of boorus (there are many beyond Danbooru), it'd probably be better to invoke Safebooru https://safebooru.org/ which is what it sounds like.
I don't think it's worth entertaining every prognostication on the off chance that it may eventually one day be true.

As you mentioned, some of them have a convincing case behind them, though, like climate change. Those are worth entertaining, IMO
There was an article posted here [1] a few weeks ago called I Don’t Like Computers which had the same nostalgic vibe about computing in the past and I argue it boils down to loss of control. End users used to be in charge. We used to be in the driver’s seat. We used to tell computers what to do. Now, with pop-ups, ads, notifications, and so on, they tell us what we should be doing and we have to beg and work around them to do what we want. “Where do you want to go today?” is long dead.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30851371
Ask HN: What is *your* life like as a tech worker in SF/SV?
Hi HN community.

I'm working on a side project documenting personal accounts of San Francisco/Silicon Valley tech culture.

My hope is to get a variety of perspectives with no specific expectations. The key criterion is having lived and worked (tech-adjacent is fine) in the area for some time (short times included).

I don't want to lead the witness too much. Authentic views and experiences are my number one priority. That said, here's some food for thought on potential remarks:

* your background and path to tech in SF/SV;

* the social dynamics in and outside of work;

* personal connection to work, technology, and the area;

* perceptions before, while, and after living in SF/SV;

* any of your unique experiences;

* your outlook on the industry at large.

I'm not based in San Francisco, but I'm here for the month of April working on this project. Responses in writing (comments and DMs) and conversation (over video or in person) are equally appreciated! Thank you in advance for your time and openness.

Edited for formatting.
I like it a lot. Having the bulb stay alight makes me think ....
We can assume his motives by making note of his actions and comparing how well they match up to his words.

Often his actions are directly opposite of his words.
I think it's very strange that I see the same people defending one person's right to advise a present murderous regime on how to use cryptocurrency to get around sanctions and then advocate for jailing other people for voicing dumb opinions about historical murderous regimes.
> compel all shareholders to sell at $54/share

The board doesn't have that power. If a majority of shareholders do not want to sell, they'll just replace the board if it tried such a thing.

In this case, the top 10 shareholders are almost 50% of the shareholders all by themselves, so this really comes down to what they decide to do.
Actually, it was in a sense worse, it only let those able to afford to print distribute their potentially inane thoughts. It did not distinguish whether thoughts were inane or not, it only distinguished how much money you had. The assumption that being able to afford something prevents one from or is mutually exclusive with having inane thoughts to express is, I think all of history would corroborate, completely unwarranted.
Can someone give me a layman's explanation as to why taking Twitter private would allow Elon to make the changes he wants to make that he couldn't do if it was still public?
> I'm not sure why everyone is talking about this as though it's on the horizon? The article doesn't mention "free speech"

Because if Musk said "I have no problem with Trump or Nazis on the platform and would unban them", he wouldn't have nearly the same support as he does now.

Instead people's reaction is "yay, edit button! Go Musk Daddy!"
Yeah, not to mention that these semiconductors are probably not particularly transparent ? (Not counting the photoelectric photons.) And you're going to have to cool them "before" and "after" the light hits the mirror behind them.
You are welcome to ignore it. This is an opt-in ecosystem (for now). Are you sure you don’t want a few sats in case I am right?
> How do you define free speech absolutism?

The ability for people to call a black Twitter user the N-word, a female user to "fuck off and get raped," a liberal/conservative user to eat a bullet, as well as spreading known falsehoods and toxic content (either as gospel or for the lulz) -- all without getting banned for having "alternative views."
Asking for a Raise: How (and When) to Do It
“Correct” opinion, is also subjective. Someone thought let’s say the hunter biden laptop story was true at first, then someone convinced them it was wrong, because of censure.

And maybe that opinion was “wrong” because it didn’t promote some agenda or worldview that the majority hold.

What is true, and what is correct aren’t always the same thing.

In 1984 the correct answer to 2+2 is 5.
Good idea, but actually you'll probably want to look at the option markets as well, to take account the exact strike price at which Musk wishes to take Twitter private. If you only look at spot price (i.e. TWTR stock), then you need some way to factor out all the other beliefs market participants have about Twitter (e.g. stat-arb correlations with NASDAQ index).

As of time of writing, the delta on a $55 TWTR call option expiring 2 months from now is 0.297, representing a ~30% probability it will be in-the-money. But you still need to subtract the probability that the share price gets there without Mr. Musk's help.

You can also google "merger arbitrage" on google scholar to find some more maths on the subject.
yeah i was mocking ggp
You have not demonstrated a false dichotomy. Even inciting a riot doesn't have to be forbidden. Rioting itself is the problem, not talking about rioting.

We may decide it's better to not allow rioting speech, but that doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
Yeah, e-bikes seem to be a rather different deal in different countries in practice.

The way the legislation sees e-bikes here is that the motor should be for assistance and comfort, and to enable somewhat longer commutes etc., not for being able to go at speeds of motorized traffic. (You can also go faster than 25 on an e-bike, just like you could on any bike, but it has to be on human power.)

25 km/h is IMO a reasonable maximum powered speed in urban bicycle traffic. It's a speed you can reasonably reach on a traditional urban bike by just pedalling, so it's not wildly above the speeds of other bikes in the same traffic, but it's high enough to be useful in a city environment.

I can imagine that somewhat higher powered speeds would be nice to have when riding in car traffic, or on roads or paths outside of urban areas where you might ride much faster than that on road bikes. As a compromise it's fairly reasonable from my city-dwelling point of view, though.

The legislation here probably wanted to prevent exactly the kind of a mess you'd get from having what are effectively motorized vehicles running on sidewalks and other paths that are explicitly not meant for motorized vehicles.
Ask HN: Do you manage your family's digital safety?
Most of my family members (nuclear and extended) have little interest in spending time to manage their digital selves. Amongst other things making sure they have control of their passwords and accounts in a safe matter.

I've lately decided to set up a 1Password Family Account to help at least my nuclear family into taking net security more serious.

- What steps did you take to make it simple enough for your family to care?

- Did you retain any restorative powers? As in keeping master passwords to certain things and/or emergency accesses like in LastPass?

- Which subjects spurred the most discussions and how did you solve it?

- Which items do you share amongst all family members?

Edit: Formatting
> Sometimes even coming to such views as "free speech is dangerous" and that "we should limit free speech" (by blocking the views I don't like).

This is such an oversimplification that it verges on being a straw man argument.

You talk about authoritarian take-overs. Your problem wasn’t limitations on free speech. It was that people who didn’t care about laws got into positions of power, and enough people in that country didn’t care enough when the law was ignored.

Authoritarians don’t care about precedents or laws. If a law is causing them problems they’ll change it. It happens all the time. And an ignorant or misinformed population can be easily distracted with red herrings like xenophobia and homophobia.

There’s been a rise in fringe extremists in the US. Many of them are ardent supporters of Donald Trump, who benefitted tremendously from the megaphone that Twitter provided, a company that isn’t even 20 years old and yet has come to represent freedom of speech somehow and arguably helped him get elected. This is the same man who launched an all out attack on elections, one of the tenets of the democracy; a man who also threatened to cut off access to White House press briefings to any news channel that attacked him; a man who sent the police on peaceful protesters in DC just so he could do a photo-op. All of those are serious attacks on democracy, and he has faced zero consequences, Twitter or no Twitter. Why? Because his zealot supporters are too busy trying to ban books, limiting abortion and bringing back an LGBT rights as a major political topic to care.

Extremism is dangerous too. Electing people who don’t care about the law is dangerous. Once those are allowed to fester and take over, democracy is already in grave danger and laws or precedents won’t provide much help.
A lot of the replies to this thread seem to be running with their own assumptions & definitions of what a "Customer Success" dept/org is. I've personally never worked for a company that used that language, so I went looking and found the job description for this person's role: https://startup.jobs/global-head-of-customer-success-remote-...

I'm still unclear where "Global Head of" for something like this fits in an org chart (Who do they report to? Who reports to them? Is it within a marketing, sales or customer support tree? Etc). Title inflation and whatnot considered...
Tailscale engineer here. I confirm.

Only cryptographically valid packets are accepted, and then we only return peer identity information for flows from said authenticated & authorized packets.
Wait, just for clarification... do you believe a company should be allowed to censor speech on its own platform if it wants to do so? Or are you saying a business should not be allowed to remove any posts unless a court has given its approval?
I think there's another point to consider with older technology: It was hard to use! The technical know-how required to get a site online in the 90's, early 2000's was a big filter for the quality of its content.
> They should be indifferent to the speech like a telephone company is indifferent on what people speak on the phone

So what is your view on content ranking algorithms? Should those be illegal, to ensure that the platform is indeed completely indifferent?

and if you disallow content ranking algos on twitter, then how do you search? Who or what gets to determine what is similar and/or relevant?
UTF16 is not fixed length, it has surrogate pairs.
How to sell software and earn a million:

1 x $1,000,000
10 x $100,000
100 x $10,000
And so on

I agree with you, low volume doesn't mean anything.
Do you think Google is reading the contents of drive documents?

Google's definition of "reading" involves human eyeballs.

Do they have algorithms in place that can collect personal data from drive documents?

Most likely.

It's been proven that they scan your mail for every scrap of available info such as web links and purchases receipts. Why would they treat other documents any differently when there is no legal requirement to do so?

https://mashable.com/article/gmail-tracks-your-purchases
How does it guarantee that? What if I have information that so and so in a government is a rapist but a sea of lies implies I'm a traitor or pedophile
Yes but here’s your right wing authoritarian lean; seeing this research as some form of truth and power to wield.

There’s absolutely no reason to see these authors as correct. In fact it appears to have triggered confirmation bias; the right in the US caged kids, confiscated land to build a useless wall, suspended Habeas Corpus over 9/11, both sides and the patriot act; no right wing voters stood up to stop them, and is often cheering on their book burning and gun waving threats. But this confirms to you the left are the vile aggressors of the last 30 years? When the politicians and their party cheer or idly ignore the platforms issues, calling everyone else fascist you jump the shark completely.

Appeals to far away high minded authority are pretty traditional human authoritarian. Researchers can show up and grow some potatoes, kill their next steak; contribute to the hands on mess. Their theories aren’t solving day to day issues for them, poorer workers are.

Otherwise this is merely leveraging the currently acceptable form of feudalism to command more attention than “essential workers”.

When the right is not batshit insane, violating others rights in a gaudy display of how free they are to do so, we can talk about others.

Frankly; both sides are apathetic cowards who kowtow to political tradition and have no clue how to work together freely; they bleat about one side or the other while circling around the same politically captured economic scheme with each other. The problem
is you all repeating there are two sides due to repetitive exposure, when it’s just other people.
I love how you claim the word harm is vague and hard to define in one sentence then apply bias to your definition claiming only your view as legitimate.

Maybe harm isn't hard to define? Maybe you people just keep making shit up?
Disable remote content loading on all your email clients.
Remote content loading tells spammers 1) that you received the mail and are looking at it and 2) your IP address.

Don’t bother trying to unsubscribe. It leaks the same information as above, plus you may get infected. They won’t stop spamming.

Train yourself and your spam filter to catch spam. Never engage.
Vitalik: Ethereum, Part 2