skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Modern buildings have a second building in them, the stairwells, which are probably about as good as it gets if you're unable to get underground.

High wind speeds are astonishingly destructive. I guess I'd rather be in my car than on foot when wandering around tornado class weather, but at that point I've already lost the bet and should have stayed home.
"UOD, ..." can also work very well on a call.

The point is to present a solution and give them the chance to just say "GO" or "Woah" instead of handing them a problem with the expectation to work through it with you.

Moreover, the point of just notifying the "UOD, ..." is to minimize getting entangled in the bureaucracy. Calls can often lead to either massive time-wasting for everyone in playing phone-tag, or escalation and further pointless delay which literally benefits no one.

Distracting other people from their tasks to get a definitive answer on an item where it is reasonable for me/you to make an executive decision and give them an opportunity to check it before implementing it is really most often best for everyone.

Now obviously, if it is a real unknown on a critical item where getting it wrong will really fork-up someone's week, then you call and nail down a hard answer and then document it in writing.

But, the point is that for a surprisingly large amount of stuff, "UOD, ..." works amazingly well for everyone — and I do mean everyone.
for some reason, neither of these work.

I've been trying to get slack to show the current time on messages.

does it just hardcode GMT?
> then verbally attack users who point out that you’re not supporting it

I didn't verbally attack you. I just asked that you stop bringing it up on every thread where Caddy is mentioned. It causes us stress and wastes our time to have to re-explain ourselves the same way every time. Yes I used an aggressive tone, but it's because we're frustrated to continue hearing it. We always have in the back of our mind "is that one person going to post about trailing dot domains _again_?"

> Just accept it, acknowledge that you’re not supporting it and that it’s not part of your scope.

We did that. That's what a WONTFIX is.
In most faculties this is already happening, mainly because solving a problem that big corp is interested in will make it more likely to secure funding (by big corp), and in general you probably want to discuss (or even evaluate) the practical applications of your (maybe theoretical) research.

They will still be part of the rat race though. Actually it's been interesting to observe the opposite, I know some PhD students who quit because big corp offered them a nice position in their innovation branch with much more freedom (and financial security) to work on their favourite problem... A bit of luck involved to have your field of research align with big corps' goals though.
Right, most ORM tools give an escape hatch to execute raw SQL queries. However, even though SQL is turing complete, it's not a great language for retrieval imho. It's probably an artifact of the underlying relational models (and the relational output it has to generate) but still.
Steve Yegge on Reorgs
Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut.
This is *a huge disadvantage...

My typing on mobile is getting pretty bad...
I got pretty excited when I read this response, but no, it doesn't work. I'm not sure how this would work since annotated tasks return an xcom object.

Can you point me to the documentation on this function? It's possible I'm not using it correctly.

I can do something like this, which works locally, but breaks when deployed:

res = annotated_task_function(...)
res.operator.task_id = 'manually assigned task id'
An article that discusses attribution for the paper:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/08/30/katherine...

'As Johnson later recalled, "Finally, Ted told him, 'Katherine should finish the report, she's done most of the work anyway.' So Ted left Pearson with no choice; I finished the report and my name went on it, and that was the first time a woman in our division had her name on something."'
I think they are excellent textbooks if your goal is to learn all about algorithms. And by this I mean he takes these great tangents into slightly different derivations that lead to wildly different complexities. Or why somethings are actually ambiguous or some interesting special case.

And maybe even more importantly, a great collection of problems to work through. I think it is actually an underappreciated text nowadays.
Accelerating the Growth of a Media Company
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲
Like many smaller businesses, Polarity was growing so quickly that its technology infrastructure was having a hard time keeping up. Opportunities to better track and report activities existed throughout the organization, including finance and accounting, IT/infrastructure, business development, and legal.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
For this Saint Louis-based comics and animation company, the opportunities for improvement could impact both processes and key business goals such as revenue and profitability growth, and reducing operating costs. Polarity partnered with Xceede Solutions, who leveraged the power of Salesforce® to achieve these goals.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲
Improvement in these areas impacted processes that led to revenue and profitability growth, as well as the reduction of operating costs.

This is a case study on how we made it happen.
I have the same problem - I wonder if that just sets browser timezone to GMT
They were paying off a foreign debt until 1947.

That's not the only reason for Haiti's problems, but it's a big red flag. They were always poor, and what little money they did make got sent to France to pay off that centuries-old "debt".

It does no good to tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. A lot of harm was done to them, and the poverty left them open to more dictatorial abuse. They're not just going to wake up tomorrow and fix centuries of abuse.
It's to warn you that the author has no clue about security and you should look for a better source.
What a woeful website. Giant banner for cookies, overlay autoplay DRM video taking up half the screen multiple times. I gave up.
This will be awful because then all the social media apps will start to bundle their own browsers, without ad blocking!
It's far more complicated than you think to sink a modern combat ship with a missile. The Neptune would qualify as "minimally capable" and if it weren't for Russian incompetence and target intelligence, or it wouldn't have succeeded.

First, you have the sea. It's flat, it's quiet, and it's pretty much void of surface and aerial radar contacts. Missile stealth is really hard in this environment because of the quiet background, and the Neptune is not stealthy. The ship-based radars are really only limited to the curvature of the earth... so for the Moskva, that's probably 9miles in bad conditions, 18miles in best conditions. The cold background even allows IRST to work quite effectively (not sure if the Moskva has that capability). The target ship is going to know you're coming, especially the Moskva, as in the absolute worst conditions, that's about 30s-45s of warning time, or 10m-15m if you have an AEW radar.

Second, radar blindness is a two way street. You can fire a missile, but it will be blind to its target until it's pretty close and can activate some sort of terminal phase guidance. Navies _always_ keep their ships moving to avoid attacks. Basically, for a sub-sonic missile, you can fire it at where the target is now, but by the time it gets to where it thinks the target is, it may not be there anymore. There's a couple of ways to handle this. For Navy's very modern LRASM, that's a passive link receiving mid-course updates, with fallback to GPS/Inertial guidance. For the Neptune, it's just inertial guidance. Just _moving_ the target ship around randomly is enough to protect it from a Neptune strike and Russia did not do this.

Third, your missile needs to broadside. Ships are designed to cut through the water, so a head-on attack will just cause the missile to skip off the bow. Your missile needs to have enough spare fuel to turn about and detect the orientation of the ship. Again, you can defeat this by randomly turning your ship a bunch of times. There's a case in the Falklands war where an Exocet was coming in hard for a kill, but the ship's commander had enough time to orient the ship towards the missile with full rudder, and the Exocet bounced, then exploded on the deck rather than penetrating. There was damage, but ship stayed in combat. The Neptune doesn't have great loiter time. And its rudimentary radar terminal guidance it's probably easily attacked electronically anyway.

Finally you have point defenses. Russia actually has quite sophisticated CIWS systems, both missile and rotary cannon. It's speculated that the only really guaranteed way to defeat these systems is a saturation attack, which was not the case, or a supersonic terminal phase, which the Neptune is not capable of. Russia pretty much had all its defenses down.

So no, the Neptune is really not that sophisticated. This attack was successful purely based on knowing the limitations of the weapon system and timely intelligence.
A.K.A, "The Ranma 1/2 cure."
Lithium is very abundant, and methods for extracting from dried lake beds or sea water are under way. Nickel is a far greater concern.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was launched with 160,000 troops on the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deploymen...

Russian forces in the 1st & 2nd Chechen wars (1994--6 and 1999--2009, respectively) were in the 70k -- 80k range.

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

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

A force of 200,000 is a very considerable invasion force.
And then the markets cool down and head towards recession territory, and the fed lowers rates. Which is driving which?
EU drive for new clean energy could see solar panels on all new buildings
Yes, but the I believe similar cases have appeared where the courts have found against the objectivity of smart contracts. I think, ultimately, the point of regulating the financial markets is not to protect investors, but to protect the economy. And if a smart contract undermines the security of our financial system, then that smart contract may simply be illegal.
https://archive.ph/7Kfjn
Yes, and vosk is really amazing…
Around here that's just a normal morning commute
Maybe I passed out among the nonsense but most langs provide a dbnull constant to check against, no?
I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. It's so politically charged and yet impossible to clearly discuss in any significant detail, thus the situation we find ourselves in.

I think it's better to just accept that abortion is prematurely terminating a life and thus the primary consideration should be the cost the parents and/or society can pay. Can society afford the cost of raising unwanted children and of the cycle of abuse that often comes along? and similarly, can society afford the cost of the lifestyle that makes people choose abortion to focus on other things? These things are much easier to discuss. As a 'bonus' this framework also handles the justification for countries which have legal abortion except with restrictions like barring abortions after sex determination.

There seems to be a large agreement that abortion within the first trimester is acceptable, so I think that while it's terrible that it has to happen, society on average currently puts the line between the first and second trimesters for where the costs of both sides balance out, such that even if the fetus could be teleported into an artificial womb, an unconditional abortion should be acceptable. I think the artificial womb point only works if it also somehow erases society's burden of raising the child.

I used to think that "abortion is rarely a happy decision but is still sometimes necessary" was the consensus position so it was pretty odd to me when I first became aware of the state of debate over it in the US.
What are the principles of compilation using algebra?
> It's not just incompetence leading to technical bloat.

it's bad decisions after all. How would you call that? Alien invasion?
The most valuable part of TAOCP, for me, is its writing.

I've never read anything that is more precise or intuitive.
TAOCP is also pleasant to read.

It's the book that I go back to once a while after being bothered by the sloppiness in the documents and papers and many other written materials consumed everyday. Reading it gives a sense of enlightenment that regardless of all those poor writing, there is hope to reach the clarity that I have the deepest desire for.
I can't juge this.

But I have seen multiple cases of Ticket controlling sub-contractors acting out of line against Berlin citizens you could describe of "looking German" ("looking German" from the POV of a potential racist person, not mine POV).

I also have seen people acting out of line against the ticket controlling sub-contractors, including in the way the contractors claimed the black person did. But also worse. Like to a point where I was surprised the contractor kept calm and half expected needing to step in. Because many people would have lost it if "insulted" to that degree.

The increased tension between contractors and citizens in recent was the reason they changed their policy recently (for some time? still ongoing? idk.) to no longer have the subcontractors wear civil clothes even through it means they will miss more people without tickets. I also have seen more security people (which job does not include controlling tickets, luckily this is kept separate).
I like going all the way.

I started brewing beer last year. Now I'm growing my own hops and grain. If that goes well, I'll be malting it and turning it into beer.

But generally, I only go as deep as I need for it to work. I only go deeper if there's a problem or a true interest.
Indeed, pre-TeX, Phyllis Winkler prepared all of Knuth's papers using TYPIT sticks for all the math symbols. Unfortunately, I didn't nab her typewriter and TYPIT box after her retirement, but here's a good set of photos and explanation: https://twitter.com/mwichary/status/1098850604640755712?lang...

Also, a TYPIT advertisement on the bottom left of the third page of https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6500767
Air power did little to destroy German industry, that is correct. But, and this is a big but, it was very successful at denying the German military gasoline, without which its military machine was crippled.

The Air Force was very, very effective at supporting the ground troops. Whenever the soldiers got stuck on the ground, they'd call in the P-51s to wreck whatever was blocking them. The tanks and Wiederstanden were highly vulnerable to air attack, as well as getting their supply lines cut off.

The Kriegsmarine's super battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz were destroyed by air attack. Japan's super battleship Yamato suffered a similar fate.
That'd be awesome, sure! I'll shoot you an email.

PlatformIO is nice, yes - I've already been suggested linking/using that, but I haven't looked into it yet. I also haven't worked with that before, so it'd be completely new territory for me.
Rust being the popular example. But even C++ has this with std::optional, for example.
And nazis literally invented rockets science that allowed us to explore solar system. So whats Your point? Because clearly you are not seeing that people are not rational but rather rationalizing. Which sometimes leads them to invent useful things like empiricism, and other times things that are not so useful (ideologies, religions etc)
While great, it is following the path others have trailed before.

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

One example among many others.
First of all, I don't believe that's actually true based on what I've seen: what seems to be more often the case is that the tickets pay for the marketing and some of the athletic infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the coaches are being paid millions of dollars per year. I don't care how much money the athletic program is bringing in; that's not a responsible use of the money. (I get that it's something of a prisoner's dilemma at the individual institution level; I'm more talking about the broader issue.) If you have the money to pay the coaches $2M/year, that means you could, instead, stop paying your adjunct professors and regular staff sub-poverty wages, and/or perform proper maintenance on the buildings.

And do not get me started on the economics of stadium construction.
We're doubling battery factory capacity every 12-18 months.
My favorite Knuth fact is that he thinks P = NP. [1][2] That's a very contrarian view.

[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XDTOs8MgQfg

[2]: https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2213858&WT....
T? is just syntactic sugar for Optional/Maybe, no?
Support for PostgreSQL and SQLite -- that's all I want. (For now.)
Nothing in crypto belongs to you. It belongs to the private key or whomever holds that.
Another I use is tenacity, when I need to call unreliable external services:

https://tenacity.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
The worst part is that it's not done yet :^)

This means that you will not find super complete introductory materials about every aspect of programming with Zig. The language reference is very good but for example the standard library doesn't have docs yet as we're still working on the autodoc tool. On the other hand reading the stdlib source code is very easy in good part thanks to the reasons you already mentioned in your post.

https://github.com/ziglang/zig/wiki/How-to-read-the-standard...

You might also be interested in reading about the project to see if you like where we're going (aside from technical details of the language).

https://kristoff.it/blog/zig-new-relationship-llvm/
https://kristoff.it/blog/maintain-it-with-zig/
https://kristoff.it/blog/interfacing-with-zig/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqDdWEiSwMM

You can find links to learning materials in the "learn" section of the official website:

https://ziglang.org/learn/

Last but not least, at the moment we compensate the lack of learning materials by having a community that it's very good at helping newcomers, so make sure you join one of the communities.
I'm not as familiar with how C++ does allocations compared to julia, but I'd imagine the limitations would be similar - if `new` can allocate memory on the stack, I can't imagine why it wouldn't work out of the box.

C++ really isn't my forte though.
So, we should never try to be better, because the past and present suck? Your logic is extremely cynical and self-defeating. No change would ever occur with such a mindset.
> - does your device have remote debugging enabled on Safari?

Do you mean “Web Inspector”? Yes.

> - was your phone in low-power mode?

No.

> - did you first access the site through a WebKit in-app browser panel before opening it Safari?

No.

> - what version of iOS?

15.2

> - what model of iPhone?

13 Pro Max

I did force quit Safari and I no longer see the brief flash of target state when adding items to lists. But I didn’t check if I saw that immediately before doing force quit, sorry. I’ll write if I ever see that again.
ELT for the Data Consumer
Clearly you’ve never tried to talk to someone on the liberal side about if what they want will actually work or produce an outcome that is desirable for the rest of the population! Hah.

SF is a prime example of when someone can use reason and argument and ‘helping others’ to convince people to do things that just don’t actually work.

Conservatives definitely have a bent that most intellectuals and folks in tech find offensive, and for reasons that are often due to fundamental differences in worldview and environment.

But a lot of the rational arguments for things going on right now, for those who have actual experience in the real world, are bullshit if you start challenging the assumptions. But that is hard, be will get you nailed. And frankly, no one like that is going to try to do that right now because it isn’t even about rationality. It’s a different set of beliefs and feelings with attached justifications.

But, any sizable group of people randomly selected will have similar differences. The reason we have social rules, is people have found over time when to talk and not talk about certain topics ,because for a society to function, we need to agree to some common ground and not actively antagonize each other over these fundamental differences.

Because you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into, and very, very few people have actually reasoned themselves into much of anything.

No amount of talking is likely to change anyones mind about these things.

For instance, I believe that the best way to resolve a problem is to talk openly about it, directly discuss the range of impacts this problem will have, discuss our own capabilities and successes/failures in resolving the problem openly, and then prioritize it against other open problems and likely risks.

That makes me great for engineering leadership it turns out. Near as I can tell, also emergency response.

It apparently makes me absolutely terrifying to a decent swath of the population, especially when they are screwing up and don’t know how to stop.

So I’ve learned that I need to not do this to certain people if I want them to not run away screaming. It also means I’ve learned some people are useful to partner with and some people are radioactive bad to do so with.

And in a society, especially a country so diverse and over such an area, that means picking which fights to have, and dialing back the rhetoric, but that requires both sides to do that.

If one side won’t, then it is a war. No one can maintain sensible boundaries with appeasement - which is fundamentally different than compromise.
Furries run the entire internet, just a disclaimer :)
There was this guy at my previous work who was in charge of Salesforce. Literal sales force members were denied access to Salesforce information under the guise of “SOX Compliance”. He threw this bureaucratic wall out every time. I don’t think he knew what SOX policy meant. It was purely subjective and was really a ploy for power and control. The company suffered for it.
Alpine Linux 3.16.0 Released
None thus far.

To be clear, and I realize that the tone of my comment might come off as a bit more bitter than I intended it to, I don't blame MS for declining me. Obviously they're free to decline anyone they'd like, and I'm sure they get people with PhDs and industry experience all the time.
>In the world of smart contracts code is indeed law, but that doesn't change the fact that in the real world law is law

I think some confusion arises because that "smart contracts" only make sense if code really is law, in the sense that any transaction executed by the contract -- even unexpected, surprising transactions -- is considered to be fully consented to by all parties interacting with the contract.

I agree that that's a terrible idea - bugs can always exist, and having no recourse when millions of dollars are lost due to a coding error is a huge and unreasonable risk.

But otherwise -- if, ultimately, courts can force "smart contract" transactions to be unwound if they are found to be exploitative, unintended or otherwise invalid -- then what's the point of having smart contracts in the first place? What's the value proposition? Why not just use regular contracts?
Don't forget the United States and a succession of puppet regimes in South Vietnam/Cambodia lost to the North Vietnamese/Vietnamese despite managing to inflict losses of approximately 100x enemy and civilians and other countries residents (the favorite accounting method of measuring success at the time) by 1980.