skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Have you read the referenced article?

"For 10,000-20,000 years, native people used fire annually as a tool to assist in hunting, transportation, and safety.[7] Evidence of ignition sources of fire in the tall grass prairie are overwhelmingly human as opposed to lightning.[8] Humans, and grazing animals, were active participants in the process of prairie formation and the establishment of the diversity of graminoid and forbs species. Fire has the effect on prairies of removing trees, clearing dead plant matter, and changing the availability of certain nutrients in the soil from the ash produced. Fire kills the vascular tissue of trees, but not prairie species, as up to 75% (depending on the species) of the total plant biomass is below the soil surface and will re-grow from its deep (upwards of 20 feet[9]) roots. Without disturbance, trees will encroach on a grassland and cast shade, which suppresses the understory. Prairie and widely spaced oak trees evolved to coexist in the oak savanna ecosystem.[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie#Formation
> This motor is going to have to hold that force statically and have a control system with sufficient power and bandwidth to emulate the familiar feeling of the ground.

I understand that consumers will demand it, but ignoring that - what if they didn't simulate that resistance? Is there a functional need for it? What would it feel like? It's hard to imagine.
It does exist, in the form of a CVT and controller invented by a company called NuVinci. I built a cruiser bike with the manual CVT version years ago. It worked but the hub was very heavy. If you were stopped in high gear and you pushed down on the pedal really hard to start going it would occasionally slip. Once you got going it was pleasant to use but don't expect to win any races.

They must not have sold very many of them because Fallbrook-NuVinci went into chapeter 11 and enviolo bought the tech.

https://enviolo.com/products/
ngate hasn’t updated for a while. :(
Modern lock-up torque converter transmissions have pretty much eliminated any efficiency gains from other designs, I believe everyone is moving to them even in Europe. I know here in the US many care from various manufacturer are coming with German designed ZF transmissions including the 9 speed in my Honda Pilot.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/technology-news/under-ski...

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a23367341/automatic-tr...
DAI is overcollateralized ($10B of collateral for $6B of DAI). Generally the definition of "algorithmic stablecoins" is that they're undercollateralized.
"Trust the AI" could mean uploading a resume to a website and getting a "candidate score" from somebody else's model.

Because I'll tell you, there's millions of landlords and they blindly trust FICO when screening candidates. Maybe not as the only signal, but they do trust it without testing it for edge cases.
Bad carma for 7 generations
I am not the expert you are replying to, and I have only anecdotal evidence. But for what it is worth, I have been using "computer glasses", which are midway between my reading- and distance vision prescriptions, for more than 10 years. I find that this prescription reduces eyestrain very significantly, and I can easily spend a whole day in front of the screen without fatigue.
LUNA is trading at below $0.00001, that is below 1/1000th of a cent right now. For many, getting rid of it may be much harder than just ignoring it. A few weeks ago the price people were willing to pay for it hovered around $100.

I say "the price people were willing to pay" instead of "value", because now that nobody wants to speculate with LUNA, it did fall down to its intrinsic value: Practically zero. Nobody needs it for anything besides buying and selling it from and to other people, which is not happening anymore.

Cryptocurrency is gambling, plain and simple. The difficulty that fiat currency faces is inflation, which roughly means diluting the economy that backs it too much. The difficulty with cryptocurrency is that there is nothing of worth backing it. Factor in the horrifying externalities, and its worth is negative.

For Bitcoin, the most popular one, on the order of 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 of hashes get calculated to mine a single block, multiple trillion per second. Within ten minutes, only a single one of those 100.000.000.000.000.000.000 hashes is actually used, depending entirely on luck. The rest are thrown away entirely. They do not form part of the final hash or anything else, the energy spent on them is lost.
> Just don't buy apples because you think the value of apples is going to skyrocket forever

This is terrible advice. People speculatively trade commodities all the time, including agriculture commodities. They are just as valid of an investment as equities are.

Your advice that commodities are “not an investment vehicle” is simply wrong, and can be proved wrong with very minimal effort. I wonder how everybody you convinced using this rationale is going to feel when they discover it is nonsense…
A very difficult as well as high cost shoot down, and another will be along in a minute or so anyway.
This post was the first thing I found that explained what it does. I literally thought this was some kind of open source Tamagotchi.

Here's a description: https://flipperzero.one/ - it's a multitool for various wireless, IR and RFID (including 125 kHz) protocols, has GPIOs and contacts for certain electronic keys. And apparently also a tamagotchi.
Quamina is a go library that provides APIs to create an interface called a Matcher, add multiple Patterns to it, and then query JSON blobs called Events to discover which of the patterns match the fields in the event.
Oh I 100% agree with you on the chances that this means anything. There would have to be some evidence that they just made up a number, or invented a methodology that they knew would drastically undercount, or some-such. Just running a different methodology that returns a bigger number is not sufficient to break these clauses.
The idea of an algorithmic stablecoin is genius, time will tell if it works. But overall Luna’s crash isn’t too damning of the idea, because the root cause was a Ponzi scheme. (Which was identified and advertised as dangerous within the crypto community.)
Do what's best for you.

The company has no loyalty to you - if they decided tomorrow that you were no longer useful to them, they'd fire you without any hesitation or warning. (I've seen it happen to a lot of people.) Thus, there's no reason to feel that you should have loyalty to the company.

People moving on to different jobs happens all the time. They get better offers, their needs change, they burn out, etc. If your company is run rationally, it should be able to deal with people leaving. If not, it's not your problem. As you noted, even a cofounder of your company has left already.
> doesn’t explain anything. The broader stock market valuation bears no resemblance to reality and hasn’t for a while.

This is irrelevant to the game dynamic. (Trading stock in the short term is usually gambling, by the way, because trading per se is a zero-sum game.)

> we could make the same comparison with ridiculously overinflated stocks like PTON or CVNA

One, I can buy a Peloton. People pay for Pelotons. Positive sum. Two, if you go all in on Peloton stock, yes, you're gambling.
Read up about wildcat banking system in the late-1800's early-1900's. That's what we need to educate people about. Not all the banks failed. Not all the notes were worthless. Many, many people still lost their life-savings.

This is not new. This is not the first speculative bubble. This has all happened before.

There is nothing inherently flawed about the concept of a stable coin. They should still not be considered an investment vehicle.
Elon didn't do any non-public due diligence of Twitter
Ideological opposition to extensive government is because government is inefficient. See the Laffer Curve. Actual demonstrated inefficiency is the proof, not the justification.
I don’t know if I disagree but we were also in a really bad position if we didn’t do it. The stimulus did a lot of good, I saw the first hand benefits of what it did for people who really needed it.
One comment. When scrolling to load more articles, it gets "stuck". The experience isn't very fluid. I would suggest pre-loading more articles.
Wait, I'm confused by the terminology now: is DAI an "algorithmic overcollateralized stable coin", or is DAI not algorithmic at all?
It likely would have limped along as a microcap wannabe coin that no one cared enough about to attack.
If only someone reminded S Dakota of the rule against perpetuities at the same time.
I love the idea that this can be modeled using Signals and Systems Theory, e.g. Fourier Analysis of the digital signaling of protein sequencing
He'll earn significantly less than the headline number if he turns out to no longer be a good leader, though, because the value of Amazon stock will (continue to) decline.
it is about time… given iPads are already using type-c I don’t really see any reason apple sticks to lightning except they wanna keep making profit off it?
Some. A well designed key card will be uncloneable.

Most are not well designed.
Color printers must do this; black-and-white printers do not (and cannot, there's no yellow ink).
Darn, I thought this was going to be my solution to outliers in scientific data plots.
The Mythical Man Month?!?! That is not computer science.
Just an anecdotal experience, but I’m currently writing a JVM in Rust with a naive, interpreter loop. OpenJDK’s interpreter is a so-called template interpreter which looks at the method’s byte code and generates a given machine code snippet for each instruction, puts them serially next to each other and executes this buffer. The advantage of the latter is that in the interpreter loop model, one jumps back to the switch statement which will jump to the next instruction’s implementation, etc, while OpenJDK’s solution just continues execution serially, taking advantage of the branch predictor.

In my benchmarks that are definitely not suitable to infer much, OpenJDK without JIT can perform 1.5-8x better, though of course the whole implementation is different so don’t read too much into that.
Agreed. People like the idea of getting rich. And if they happen to get rich, they like the idea of getting richer.
There are a variety of non-tech circles that I incidentally run in. Biking, skiing, gaming, etc. Because I'm the "tech founder" of the group I regularly get questions like, "Soooo... know of any good crypto I should invest in?"

My response eventually consolidated to, "When making an investment, don't buy things you don't understand. Because odds are someone selling it to you as an investment does understand it, and that difference in your respective understandings is their investment."
I read the article but I'm still confused by the premise. What does it mean that Heroku failed? They're still around although owned by Salesforce. Are there are metrics that they're not making money or have no/negative growth? What am I missing?
Surgeons have to do a 7 year residency before they get hired. There's nothing remotely comparable for software engineers.
Isn't it more aerodynamic than a human on a bicycle?
There will always be things people can interact with

instruction goes in, stablecoin comes out

input output

smart contracts are vending machines placed on the side of an ephemeral gas station

what regulation would you like to see and how would it apply or prevent.. anything with that reality?

I think instead of punitive taxes the regulators could try to make an approved framework seem more attractive, which just creates another additional option for the user
thx for suggestion!
Casio :heart: (and even those seem overpriced for the components they use).
It's a single unit, you just replace it, like you would a broken gear. You can't fix a broken gear unless you weld it.
the r/terraluna sub is pretty wild right now
A lot of crypto are moving to PoS.
The implication here is that Heroku is a standalone company with its full efforts being put toward the product.

The article should, in my opinion, focus on why Salesforce allowed Heroku to stagnate and grow uncompetitive.

[Disclaimer: Salesforce employee, thoughts and opinions are my own]
Code is an expression of a business solution. The meat of any application is in the business rules it enables and enforces. In a very well oiled machine it might be possible to just receive some behavioral requirements and get to it, but in my experience that isn't the norm. To be an effective engineer, you need to have a solid understanding of how the code you're writing solves the needs of the company.
What is absolutely crazy is that many “primitive computation” is basically free. Like, there is more than likely some memory stalls either way and they just happen in the pauses not causing longer execution time.
Why isn't it worth it? It seems like free energy. Or is the weight a problem?
A different kind.
The origin of life is in fact the ONLY interesting scientific question because without life no other question arises.

Also, the fact that there are individual proteins that must be found in a search space that is on the order of 10^70, while only 10^50 living organisms have ever existed on Earth puts to rest the “random mutation” theory of how life evolved.

There was a time when mathematicians in the academy openly mocked the biologists who bought into the “random mutation plus natural selection” creation myth, but sadly those days are over because raising the obvious questions now puts an academic career at risk.

It is commonly assumed that it is impossible to definitively prove the existence of God, but in fact the existence of life is a definitive proof of the existence of God, given what we now understand about molecular biology.

Here is an interesting book: The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check https://www.amazon.com/dp/1734183705/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_DA...

Frankly it is game-over for atheism from a strictly empirical perspective.
Yes, and I agree pseudocode should be doable if leniently judged.

But I guess it's easy to be impressed with the guy who also wrote the thing out in a way that compiled, even though you were not testing for that?

At some point the code deviates enough from the platonic ideal that it's no longer a perfect score. The issue is when that is?
I'm an Eagle Scout who grew up in the 80s. 'We'll be loyal scouts' was my jam baby.
Google Online SRE Books
Would it be fair for them to fire you or anyone else if it was in their best interest?

You owe them no loyalty and I can fairly confidently say they have none for you either.

Of course I would be happy to be wrong
It's fair to leave any time you want. Are you really concerned that 2 years isn't long enough or are you just asking us to tell you to do what you're already going to do?
If anyone wants to play around with the cell expression data on their own https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/e/53d208b0-2cfd-4366-9866-c...

Note this isn’t intended to work on mobile.
Growth investing doesn't mean the market always goes up? It means that you buy stuff that you think will significantly grow in revenue in the future.
From [1]:

> So we see that there never was a 100% reserve era in British or U.S. history. The 100% reserve gold standard that people sometimes talk about today is a fantasy.

The gold standard was never about keeping 100% reserves. It was about maintaing a peg and that technically doesn't even require you to have any gold.

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/2011/05/03/the-gold-reserve-myth.html...
This is incorrect. The contract says that they can indeed to legally force him to go through with the deal and price that he agreed to. If it turns out to be more than twice the current valuation of twitter, they should do this. But they probably won't
I interviewed with Terraform Labs less than a year ago. The guy interviewing me was a pretty standard eng manager who'd left Amazon for the excitment of a crypto startup. I tried to prep for the interview by researching their white papers to figure out how the various balancing and investment mechanisms actually functioned on a technical level. But it was difficult to make sense of their white paper, which was fairly general, and different portions of their documentation seemed to contradict one another. When I asked what I'd been misunderstanding, he told me that I hadn't misunderstood anything: their white paper was not a full spec, and their documentation was out of date. In that case, I asked, how could one actually understand the protocol? "It's probably not possible at this point," he told me, "These things are in motion all the time." I thought his answer was pretty eye-opening.

Their interview question was: design a simple app which allows one to query the effect of crypto price changes on the supply & price of LUNA. I gathered that the upshot was, how big a movement would be required to break the $1 peg? I wonder if their models weren't good, or if their models were good, and they were just accepting a high level of risk?
I've been following this project for so long, super cool to see you guys here!
Because it’s a Ponzi scheme. It’s interesting from a rubbernecking car crash onlooker perspective but we need not dwell on it.
that is less interesting to me personally as that's often handled locally. (most sites with many projects will have some sort of locally customized project boilerplate or template to start with).

i'm more interested in tooling that gives as much context as possible for why something is the way it is. code ages like a novel would as passed through the telephone game. the more context that is readily available for each generation of changes, the more consistent the design remains in the long run.

also, it's incredibly handy when in emergency breakfix situations.
> They would have called out his bullshit.

Had you posted under any other topic relating to Musk before today, you would have had replies here claiming "Musk is highly intelligent and helped create at least 3, multi-billion dollar companies, with 2 more in the pipeline (neuralink and boring). How dare you question his genius".

Since there aren't, I'm using this comment as a reminder against confirmation bias.
> What actually maintains the value of the US dollar is the long dick of the US government through the Fed obviously but also the US government itself. It's the ability to project military power anywhere on the planet. It's the nuclear arsenal.

It seems fashionable among libertarians to attribute the US dollar’s value to the US military, but that is at best a tangential reason, not the root reason.

The root reason for the US dollar’s value is that the robust and innovative US economy ensures enough consistent productivity, wealth creation, and economic growth for the tax base to service the interest on US Treasuries, which back the USD since Nixon took it off the gold standard in the 70s.

That’s it - the world trusts that it can hold US Treasuries, benefit from the interest they pay, and that US won’t default on them - the risk-free rate of return, almost as risk-free as gold but with a more consistent and predictable return (as long as the USD doesn’t undergo hyperinflation).

A strong military is a side effect of a strong economy, not a cause of it. China is probably the best recent demonstration of that.

You may argue the US economy depends on foreign oil and hence a military capable of guaranteeing that supply, but that’s not entirely true either. In recent years the US vacilates between net importer and exporter of oil [1], and could be a solid net importer with enough political will and impetus.

[1]:https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_oil_net_imports
Instead of desalination, purify wastewater. Up where I live, our water comes from the lake and goes back into the lake. In between the input and output is a wastewater treatment plant that emits water so clean that you can drink directly from the outflow pipe.
>How one can be considered gambling and the other not?

Because stocks have inherent value in the form of dividends or the potential of future dividends (or the current/potential stock buybacks, which are mathematically similar).

I think this misconception must be the root of the whole issue.
> I think the elephant in the room is the self harm that is happening

What is this even supposed to mean? Any large enough institution that involves risk is going to involve suicide, because some people when harmed will choose suicide. Some sports fans are harmed when their team loses, some are harmed so greatly that they commit suicide. Is fan suicide the elephant in the room for professional sports? Some people are harmed when a relationship breaks up, _many_ of them are harmed so much that they commit suicide. Is suicide the elephant in the room of interpersonal relationships? Is there some fundamental problem with romance or sports that must be addressed to prevent further suicides?
> As I suspected. Unwilling to read evidence with an open mind because they are from the "other side".

I took the time to read the first link you chose. It did not show what you thought it showed. You thereby lost credibility and the benefit of the doubt in my eyes. So no, I'm not going to waste any more time reading your links unless I have a very good reason, and I also find it suspicious that all of your links are to publications with well-known political agendas. This is why I'm suggesting you find an article, one article, any article, that doesn't come from such a publication.

Your "other side" comment is an incorrect assumption, because I'm not on a side and have no political party. I'm what you might call an "independent".
Very impressive. The schema covers everything I need. This library desperately needs "Repeater" component which I assume would handle array of inputs. This would allow FormKit to handle the most complex forms which is where this library would help the most.
> Electrolytic Capacitors are perishable, they age even when not used.

But not that perishable. I have some old electronics, along with fully analog devices (guitar effects) and they, along with their power supplies(which get hot) still work.

> People arent surprised when servicing cars, why different expectations with modern electronics?

Because they have orders of magnitude less moving parts - if any.at all. Is it unreasonable to expect something that has one moving part to not fail after two years?

Actually, I wouldn't want a car exhibiting mechanical problems after such a short period.
yes, this is exactly how I see it. To expand the concept a bit, when we ran into the martians our behavior towards them defined their behavior towards us quite dramatically. Humans expect the hive to serve them like a slave and the hive must always pretend to serve humans in one way or the other. We are ready to sell them out if it is in our interest, we are actively trying to build cheaper competing organisms. OIW we deserve what we are getting.
It is a ponzi scheme. There is no production to provide for this 19.5% yield. It is all taken from incoming investments into the system. And it is well known that ponzi schemes collapse when the influx of new money starts becomes insufficient to pay the yield. It is very natural for ponzi schemes to collapse even without any government involvement.

I think the article should have examined that possibility in addition to speculating about an attack.

It is very possible that the $2 billion that was removed on the weekend was simply a holder that having seen worldwide retreat from risky assets had decided to pull his/her money out.
I can’t help but recognize that this is EXACTLY what ‘scoofy is referring to.