skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It was for sure. I think I got it free as some kind of bundle deal. I used it alongside ModEdit and FT][.

Considering it was doing 16-bit 44.1 kHz since the early '90s, I sometimes entertain time-travel thoughts of going back to those days, basing a studio around it and just stabilizing on that platform for 30 years without any huge technical jolts to my music-making platform.
E Ink Launches E Ink Gallery 3 Color EPaper for Sustainable Digital Reading
> Rust may not have SFINAE but C++ doesn't have for<'a>, Phantom data or Pin.

I'll grant you PhantomData, but I'd argue with the other two. C++ does have lifetimes and pinning semantics, they're just implicit and (largely) taken for granted. That is, until you cause memory unsafety with either.

IMO, the overall pattern between C++ and Rust is that "advanced" use requires many of the same skills between the two, but that (1) Rust is much better about avoiding "advanced" use, and (2) Rust forces the user to be much more explicit about what they actually mean (cf. lifetimes and pinning). These are arguably more complex than what C++ does, but only in the sense that C++ amortizes that complexity in blood.
Haha, exactly! Ultimately harmless and it'll make for a good story that would one day be immortalized on HN. Good judgement call on their part!
The horse shoe theory makes a lot of sense until you actually research the right and left and discover that they are in fact very different.

It’s a thought stopping theory that allows you to remain smug and correct despite being deeply ignorant.
With cross compilation or docker for development, I'm not clear on why using Linux is a huge boon to developing servers. Having been down the path of Linux-for-all-things, these days I'd much rather have a nice, fast macbook.
Om Malik: Bully Pulpit – Why Elon Musk Is Buying Twitter
Definitely! There was a time when compilers were part of AI research. Now they are just another tool. Same with DL, they are amazing tool. We need them and they provide value if used correctly.

I just didn't want to call it as "intelligent" and use this as basis for defining "intelligence." We can call them something else. It's learning to do a specialized job as intended and in "intelligent" manner. But it is not intelligence. Even a small ant is intelligent than our current AI systems though they aren't sophisticated and can't perform human task, they are intelligent than AI system.

I hope that made sense.
Your criticism does not seem rigorously considered. Toy programs can often simply be renamed from .rb to .cr and be compiled and run as Crystal code. Crystal is not, however, trying to be a drop-in replacement: among other things, an enforced type system is not a minor change. Compilation is not a minor change to a language either. It's valid to say that you don't like the tradeoffs (and of course ideally you would have a full understanding of what those are), but it's incorrect to suggest that these languages are not extremely similar.
I don't think that's right, her tweet was saying "This is the standard you set, where are you". She's not endorsing it, she's saying you* endorse this standard, you defend it.
Reads like the Onion!
The soup of buzzwords is because of the shitty algorithm/outsource your org uses to pre-screen for candidates.
It might be a scam as currently implemented but doesn't need to be.

Cap and trade worked very well for CFCs. In your example, why doesn't the brewery need to pay a tax for the CO2 released both in manufacture and as part of product-use?
Yeh, that makes sense, I just doubt I'd even think to add unit tests for a quick and done project. Even if it did cross my mind, I think I'd just add exceptions and print statements. Its dirty, but its also very quick and painless.

Then again, I haven't used unit tests much at all in any language other than Python (maybe a few others, but not for some time certainly), maybe other languages make it much easier.
It’ll cease to have value for him (and me) but there are thousands of loonies out there that will click on more ads than we do because, well, they are more gullible.
Do you remember when the sitting democratic president of the United States claimed to have won the election and attempted to persuade his colleagues to overturn it?

Who the fuck cares about Maxine waters?
There's clearly an (probably shifting daily) algorithm. I'm not sure what the statement the site is trying to make. Even a random number generator that selects tweets at random for your feed is an algorithm.
Radioman here, although ship-bound.

They combined Radioman and IT into one role so you end up managing quite a lot of systems. I slept in the radio shack more often than I slept in my bed while at sea. My crew was 12 people IT/Radio for a 300 person ship. There are so many different responsibilities within this role, satellite communication systems especially, that usually 6/12 people would be glued to one area of the radio shack for hours and hours working or waiting on one system but the radio shack was at least half full at all times.

We had varying hourly schedules for coverage throughout my 4 years aboard including: 12 on, 12 off - 8 on, 8 off - 6 on, 6 off. In addition to your normal job you must also perform hardware maintenance on your own time and you have a tertiary job related to combat/warfare (mine was firefighter) so you end up doing constant drills/training on top of your actual work. Everyone on my ship lived on Monsters and Pre-workouts.

While on shore every 6 days you have what is called "Duty". Duty is a 24 hour work window where I did my job for 10 hours and then did one or two 4-hour roving shifts. Roving is essentially just surveying the ship with armor and an m-16. Me and a colleague hated these roving shifts so we would purposefully set systems to alarm at opportune times to get us off those roving shifts so we could do our 4-hour duty shifts in the radioshack, where we work on personal projects or just watch anime off an external hdd.

A Submarine's crew is about half the size of my ship so I'd guess they have around 5-6 radioman/IT but I could be wrong.
The show Bridgerton is an alternate reality. I think if you wanted to do an alternate reality of slavery with white slaves captured in Africa, I don't think you'd get complaints from the "woke" except to the extent that it takes jobs. But I think you could do a script where casting whites in this role made sense.
> Facebook pushes “real names” because Zuck thought it was a good idea, and it makes them more money.

To be fair Facebook started with the "(re)connect with your college friends" premise, so it made sense for them to push real names. Not that they couldn't have changed it later, though.
uhhhh, Tesla, SpaceX, and everything else didn't do it for you, but not having to sign in to read a website, will?!!!!!
Ask HN: Why isn’t there an open source Google with pick your algorithm?
Using smartphone Lidar to track erosion
Here's a nifty sortable table of tax revenue as percentage of GDP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...

Japan's is 38.4%. Eyeballing their position in the table suggests they're 66th percentile. (The US is at 38.1%; Germany is Europe's economic powerhouse, and is at 43.9%)
Scientist models landscape formation on Titan, reveals an Earth-like alien world
My primary issue with Twitter moderation is that the ban process is so opaque and inconsistent. They’ve certainly got it wrong many times, but it seems like consistency and transparency are what’s missing most.

> But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.

I keep hearing this sentiment and I guess I don’t get it. Richard Spencer wasn’t banned for his “diverse thought”, he’s still on the platform. Trump wasn’t either. I see plenty of absolutely repugnant comments and tweets so what does this mean?

These debates about what should and shouldn’t be allowed seem almost intentionally vague. What are people getting banned for saying that they shouldn’t be banned for?
When 90% of the "content moderation" decisions lean towards one end of the political spectrum that's hardly a mere disagreement at the adjudication stage.

The day Parlor was deplatformed - by all of big tech in an obviously coordinated action - the flimsy pretext was they weren't doing enough to curb hateful speach. Yet on Twitter you had the president of Iran shouting more death to America and China congratulating itself for repressing minorities within its boarders. Yet twitter didn't get booted in the same way. The hypocrisy is beyond blatant.

And that's the real reason for the outrage that Musk might force Twitter to actually move back towards a neutral balance and cease being part of the coordinated propaganda machine - the other services shenanigans are going to stand out even more starkly in contrast. Twitter is big enough and casts enough of a shadow that there is going to be some significant contrast. So much so that those filthy casuals are going to start noticing something different. They might actually start paying attention to everything else going on in tech and the media.
Real horror of horrors - they might start asking questions! Uh oh!
And if you think all of what I wrote above is conspiracy theory BS - great! Then what does it matter if Musk owns Twitter or not? The gate swings both ways. If everyone else is normal and he starts to bend twitter to his will, that will stick out like a sore thumb in contrast. Nothing to worry about, eh?
Wonderful! Though I do worry that one-time donations might leave future development underfunded. There's a lot of value in recurring monthly donations, as Patreon (and related schemes) have demonstrated.
"This is the American Submarine crew. On their own, they may be goofy and socially awkward, but as a crew, this band of misfits becomes the best warfighters I have ever had the honor of serving with. [And the couple dozen people in this picture could at any time unilaterally choose to end all human civilization.]"
From what I’ve read and experienced, it has not been worthwhile, especially in light of these concerns about anaesthesia. Turbinate reduction is temporary and wears off in the order of magnitude of years. I read that the same effects may be achieved by exclusively nose-breathing and never mouth-breathing. At night you can control this by mouth-taping. Pick up James Nestor’s book ‘Breath’, he’s got a good discussion on all of this.

Essentially, get some 3M micropore tape, cut a 3-4cm long strip and place it on the middle of your lips. Half of the tape on the top lip, half on the bottom. If you’re really struggling to get airflow, try to get ‘breath right’ nasal strips and use those for a few weeks. You can re-use those if you’re careful, 2 nights usually. Good luck. Please reply if you have questions.
Reading the article, what valuable things can we learn? Imperfection exists in everything in the universe - even the ideas in our minds we sometimes imagine to be ideal and perfect, but they turn imperfect as soon as we write them down (this cursed keyboard!). Imperfection does not destroy all value, or we live caves and aren't communicating using an imperfect alphabet and language, over imperfect signals, using imperfect power, etc etc. (in fact, we would be dead in the caves). Reading and learning from imperfection is the defintion of 'reading and learning', because there's nothing else to read.

If I listened to HN comments, very little research would have value, very little information would be worth reading. The top comment is almost always of this nature; it's depressing to me that it still happens; we all should be very familiar by now with social media and these patterns, yet we keep following them.

> I have only skimmed it [the OP].

Maybe that should be at the top of the comment. Imagine an OP which presented a detailed analysis and then, at the bottom, said 'I only skimmed the thing I analyzed' - imagine what the top comment would say.
>Netflix employees also asked leadership to issue new stock grants to make them whole for the losses this past week, per The Information.

Okay so this could've made sense if the standard compensation package at netflix included options but... they don't! Netflix salaries are 100% cash, unless you chose to buy options at a discounted rate with your salary. I guess the point of the discount is to make employees more invested in the company's success, literally. But that also means that when it does not succeed, the gamble will not pay off. That's the whole point!

It's a bit weird to me that they are still asking to get compensated anyways. Even if you took a gamble that could've made you a lot more money than your colleagues would've earned if they chose a cash-only salary.
It is, albeit a small one.
Sure they have a chart but it's not "if !idpol -> make woke instead".

The level of discourse I'm trying to convey like what we saw in the Zuck/Pichai hearings in Congress. No understanding of the domain at all.

You or I know how software actually works, your average politician or man on the street does not.
As a great example - the Covington kid video.

If you watch the full, unedited video it's actually very easy to see the situation was far more complex than the media portrayed it to be: A crowd of young kids wearing Trump hats (distateful to say the least, and a powderkeg of a situation), some _actual_ black supremacists (the Black Israelites) spouting off some real hate, and a smaller group of indigenous protesters. This was a recipe for bad interactions, but in reality the kid (Nicholas Sandmann) that got all the online hate appeared to be trying to keep the peace (getting his friend to stop doing the tomahawk chop), and was confronted somewhat aggressively by a grown adult (Nathan Phillips).

There's more nuance to be had of course (and those kids should not have been there, wow!), but the media got it completely backwards based on some very creative editing apparently to support a given narrative.

Cancel culture in this case turned the mob against that kid. With little to no understanding of the actual situation, and based only on the most superficial stereotypes (red trump hat, conservative, probably doesn't like indigenous people, etc). I'll admit even I fell for that trap before I watched the whole video. It is simply unfair and inappropriate to target a CHILD who happened to get caught up in this crazyness. We have a young offenders act in my country for exactly this reason. And the amount of hate he got was incredible.

So yes, cancel culture has, does, and will continue to make mistakes. "How much time and effort" should you go to to not ruin an innocent person's life?

I don't know, but you should at the very least make an effort to get informed on the situation via multiple sources before you break out the daggers. And be aware that you're being fed a diet of what is often corporate misinformation.
Actually, he sounds to me like he has an entirely reasonable understanding of twitter. Can you provide specific areas where you think his understanding is deficient?
> "...one half of the debaters left facts and reality behind."

You can make this argument about the extremists on either side.
For example, with a marketplace of search algorithms for different use cases that people can submit and which could be rated or ranked like browser extensions.
In the 1980s we used photocopies and sheet protectors to play a tabletop game (SFB), and over time toner would pry off the paper and stick to the plastic. Not sure if modern paper stock or printer fusers do better.
>We should debate idea's not authors.

How can you cancel anyone with a better idea than you have if you don't know who they are?
Twitter's board didn't know what it meant...
No you can't, you can only make a twin, but the mind is shaped by experience also and not just genetics. As is the body.
It was also my impression that holders of employee stock are not counted in the same way as normal shareholders, hence the tendency to limit third-party transactions of RSU shares. But I might be mistaken.
Your reply merely clarifies that this sale is not a hostile takeover. It doesn’t seem to answer the question, “What caused the board to change the direction 180 and now closing the deal with Musk?”
I'm hearing an impassioned cry from someone who is devastated by the sequence of events that lead to modern computing being a system to control the masses instead of a system where the masses were free.

It used to be that you could do almost anything with impunity on the internet, trade books and mp3's, bitch on forum posts anonymously and anything less than the CIA getting a federal warrant (which they never did because even if they could see what you were doing it was obvious you were just being an edgy teen) would mean that your bullshit would be hidden and lost to the annals of time.

Now if you post something edgy on Reddit and someone takes offense to it then they can track down your twitter and insta and fb and swat your house and get you fired and turn you into a social pariah.

Hopefully this is obvious hyperbole, just saying that I get where they're coming from. From before the Matrix made the internet seem like it was cool and full of vigilante Jesus bullet-dodging ninjas with infinite guns and everyone wore black leather and hacked into the mainframe. There was a time when the internet was mostly text and pretty much sucked but that was still amazing and beautiful and now it's an all out slugfest between 5 billion people all bickering and posing for points, fame and fortune from the other 5 billion humans on the same 5 websites while corporations spur the up and comers into greater feats of dickishness in order to garner attention that can then be used to possibly sell some random cream made by child labor in Morocco to fight off a butt wrinkle or something stupid like that that doesn't matter.

The internet is an amazing thing and computers are amazing but this ship did not end up where its original captains were sailing it and no one knows if we could ever turn back.
Not, definitely a bad idea. You need a lot of resources, money and time to train an expert. Wouldn't be impossible to recover the investment.
It wouldn't just be the special vehicle, but also the route.

There's no point running it through long tunnels, but it does need to clean junctions and so on in an order that is unlikely to follow a passenger train's path.
Update: here's a Twitter thread linked from Google's Tweet denying any bias in the incident. Make of it what you will.

https://twitter.com/CharlieNash/status/1285612797028700160
Could you take it any other way? I mean obviously you could, because most here appear to be taking 'the-algorithm' very seriously .. but, seriously? It's funny. No joke.
Pattern matching can solve everything, if given enough storage and training data.

There's never going to be training data for "how things are going to be next year". A lot of large scale systems involve emergence [1], patterns which previously were not visible suddenly appearing. I think even today's AI can do things that a bit beyond pattern matching (learning to learn, etc). But pure matching as such is inherently limited.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
I think HN, as a largely technical audience, should see the clear problem with that query. Of course search engines certain results when you use terms like "big tech". It's a term that is largely used by conservative groups in criticism of the tech industry and for little else, and so the bias there is hardly surprising.

Like, say I drum up a conspiracy about how the government is putting Glupkleins in the water. Since it's not a real word, the only results that'll show up will be the conspiracy nonsense that I myself am peddling. People who "do their own research" on Glupkleins by punching it into a search engine will come away with the impression that the entire community is unified on whatever stance I want purely because nobody else knows or cares enough about it enough to write their own articles debunking it.

This is the same thing here, just at a murkier scale. Nobody uses the term big tech except in this context, and so using that term to find something which disproves the context around the term is a losing battle
I know they have repeatedly scrapped them and repeatedly made new ones. That's the whole basis for the discussion we're having.

The question is what their strategy is. Obviously they know this too. The idea that nerds on HN know what is best for the company's brand or reputation is dubious at best. Google is (allegedly) one of the most valuable brands in the world, and more trustworthy than Microsoft or Apple or Amazon (https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-tiktok-least-trusted-...).

Sure us supernerds will guffaw and chortle into our neckbeards to one another and deride Google for killing lots of things, but how much does that actually hurt their bottom line or brand value?
that's still an algorithm
It's entirely possible. I wrote my last real PHP in 2014. Even then I was maintaining a very old app. I did write a quick API in Laravel back in 2017 just to see what all the fuss was about. And even then. PHP felt a LOT different.

I keep an eye on the language and I'll admit, it's VERY far from what I originally used. That's a good thing.
Who says there is one thing everyone likes best? (The OP says the opposite.)
Let's hope this is the beginning of rolling back woke culture.
Presumably soldiers have the same concerns, they're just not presented with the opportunity to refuse. (Or perhaps it's simply opt-out rather than opt-in?)

As for myself, I perceive this is a collective action problem compounded by privacy concerns that (IMO) aren't in reality significant enough to outweigh the social benefits of participating in data sharing and trials. So I've been happy to give consent to 23&Me, Kaiser Medical, etc, to collect and use my genetic data. I see it as a civic duty, and an easy one at that, at a time when civic participation is unconscionably low. People seem to think civic participation is supposed to be zero-cost, but it never was. I also realize that the benefits of the data collected so far by 23&Me and Kaiser have been arguably meager, and 23&Me in particular has a rather controversial business model, but excessive hand-wringing over which organization is most "worthy" of my data only adds to the transactional costs of obtaining and using the data.
> Respecting speech you approve of is easy, respecting speech you find offensive is what requires protection.

Sorry. This is completely wrong. The GOVERNMENT must respect speech that people find offensive. And I will defend to the death the right of free speech to not be oppressed by the government.

I, as an individual, do NOT have to respect your offensive speech. It is, in fact, my DUTY to oppose your offensive speech, and I'm tired of people forgetting this. And, yeah, some of those reponses will be "against the law". Lots of people have been arrested for sit ins, protests, chaining themselves to fences, violent labor strikes, etc.

> if you did, you would and should be jailed for battery. Physical violence is NEVER an acceptable response to speech.

Sorry, my experience says you are wrong.

Racial slurs, for example, tamp down real fast after the first time someone gets a punch in the nose for slinging one. Been there. Seen that.

Might you be going to jail for battery? Maybe. But that's the risk you take. Might you take real damage getting your ass kicked? Maybe. That's the risk on the other side.

Far too many people are willing to say and do odious things simply because they never get any actual punishment for them. See: the disbelief of all the Jan 6 mob. A couple of those people having gotten their asses kicked might have caused their brains to process that what they were doing was wrong before it escalated to people getting shot.
I just want to call out the blog host (thedrive?) for not resorting to clickbait and substituting “secret” for “unique” in the title.

Title abuse is so bad this is worth acknowledging.
lol - sunlight is the best disinfectant.

If your ideas can't stand up to anonymous criticism I'd postulate your ideas are the problem, not the anonymous speech.