skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I guess I dont agree.

They created their own currency. They pay you that currency to view ads. You can take that currency and hold it, or exchange it for dollars, every time it pays out.

Is it basically the same as a centralized loyalty program? Eh, sort of, but once you have your points, you can go sell them to anyone else, off platform. It's an improvement in usability over any sort of reward points in the restaurant and ecommerce industries. I dont think BAT is a scam. There isnt a promise that holding it will make you rich. There is actually an economy for it, as advertisers are buying it for a reason, vs it just being something that people buy hoping to later offload on to the next sucker.

And it is optional. Don't turn it on, and the product isnt infected at all.
Motorcars should have dedicated motorcar lanes.

It was a mistake to let them share paved roads with unprotected road users. That unfortunate bit of history almost scared everyone else off roads.

It's not too late to repair that.
Infrastructure and defense are resources, it is something everyone benefits from.
Yeah, fair enough, I see what you meant in your other comment.
I completely agree. But only so long as the integrity and privacy is upheld (which is very much possible). The state should now how much I earn and from where, and also how much I spend but not necessarily on what.

Anonymous small transactions on a centralized government currency would be a step up from what I do today with 99.999 (or thereabout) transactions being card/digital through systems I trust much less than my government.
Did you know that Luca Deri NTOP project was intended first as a NIDS?
Happy to hear that :)
This is an exciting direction for AI code tools! I'm curious to see code review tools that give feedback on non-approved code to developers, which I think is the an important purpose of code review, to build a shared understanding of technical standards.

On a related note, I'm working on https://denigma.app, which is an AI that tries to explain code, giving a second opinion on what it looks like it does. One company said they found it useful for code review. Maybe just seeing how clear an AI explanation is is a decent metric of code quality.
I was talking to someone about this the other day. In case it interests you, they had two numbers:

$250K: Day trade & swing trade 3D / W and every other work item is optional. I think they are one of those who does inverse trading based on market conditions. This is someone with a career in tech currently, but more of an exploratory career with various breaks to try new things, and less of a long-ride career.

$2M: Move all trading positions to long-term investing or longer-term swings. Materially improve lifestyle in a planned way, based on a budget.

They keep to quite a low budget currently, and their only concern seemed to be lifestyle inflation & their own patience.

Somewhat annoyingly, I am thinking they would tell you that they also do your $10M stuff already, since they WFH and set boundaries really well. Just a guess though.

But I do know people like this who can't reach their number, because they have a problem of details rather than a problem of work & income. So their issue isn't retirement, it's un-detailing their lives somehow. They get sucked into overextensions of their energy levels, and this drives their bad spending habits, or drives them to accept jobs out of fear, and so on.

Which IMO is probably way tougher because society doesn't talk about it much and there isn't a college degree you can get in that level of thinking.
A ton of license plates with oranges on them here in the Bay Area, too.
Cydia lawsuit against Apple can proceed
Should we care that we are being given blatantly and intentionally false data? Or should we throw logic out the window and just go with emotion?
I can understand that it feels unpleasant to be on the receiving end of a response like that. But here's the thing: the negation really is self-evident as much as the original was. Native trust in "the free market" or private allocation of capital can be just as bad as native trust in government allocation of the same.
Google Meet and Teams are ubiquitous. We only use Zoom for very large meetings with hundreds of people because it supposedly does better with large meetings (don’t know if this still holds).
Europe is not like the west coast of the US. Even urban areas are practically unnavigable by foot; everything is too spread out and only accessible by walking along heavily trafficked roads.

You'll want at least a bicycle in rural Europe, but you don't normally need a whole lot more.
I think that's basically what the VASIMIR engine is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magn...
Also, include WebRTC for distributed remote partitions! (For redundant peer to peer backup, call your Ma and ask her to join your session as a distributed backup peer. If your computer dies, she'll still have the data. Now she really shouldn't close that window until your gear comes back from service…)
This is what so many techie people don't get. The end user doesn't give a FUCK if you're 100% memory safe or you use a RESTful API or your app is HIJINX(TM) COMPLIANT or whatever. They want a button they can click which fixes their problem. If you give them that, then they win, so you win.

99% of the actual, serious, important problems right now are really really simple and have really dumb simple solutions. Not always the exactly optimal solution but there's one there that will do 90% of what anyone cares about, which we can do right now, but haven't yet.
CDNs with shared infrastructure make use of domain-fronting checks. Those validate that the target of every single request (identified by the Host or :authority header) is valid for the SNI and associated TLS certificate that was used to establish the connection, and otherwise reject the request. That is actually independent of HTTP/1.1, /2 or /3, since all of those allow for multiple requests targetting different authorities on the same connection.

If you build your multi-tenant webserver yourself you however obviously have to be careful regarding getting this right.
Competition is for losers. Elon Musk isn’t competing with anyone
Those look bite sized from the video and I think they intend to fry them.

Edit: "Fried Dough Twist Maker", hey I know I'm not the thinest guy but I'm going to have to pass on buying a industrial fried dough machine.
You're basically saying test-driven development can find all problems with software, and it's well-known that that isn't the case. It's very dangerous to assume TDD is all that's needed when lives are at stake.
There are not uncountably many – we live in a finite world governed by understandable physical and civic laws.

There's an actually measurable rate of humans blocking other traffic, and for how long before resolution, and an actually measurable rate of autonomous vehicles blocking other traffic, and for how long before resolved.

If the rate for autonomous vehicles is already below that of humans, or rapidly headed there, that's far more important to note than to theorize about other corner-cases.

(Also, as a San Francisco driver, I have serious doubts about the "general intelligence" of my fellow drivers. I don't see any reasons to hold autonomous cars to a higher standard – perhaps a much higher standard? – than other cars.)
I think the history shows that Node's CommonJS was the half-baked approach that even at time browser owners and frontend programmers were complaining couldn't operate correctly in a browser environment. (AMD is awful, but it was at least designed around the constraints of a browser.) ES Modules are possibly over-baked, but they are certainly not half-baked: they are extremely carefully designed to operate well under the constraints of browser environments (and Deno and Node 12+ shows they work well in other environments too).

It's not this ES Module spec's fault that Node picked a half-baked module format that was known to be deficient at the time and built a massive legacy ecosystem on top of a bad module format. As nasty as AMD is to write, had Node picked something much more like it the backwards compatibility story would have been much, much simpler all around.

It's fair to suggest that because the Node ecosystem has become so dominant that the lack of backward compatibility is a serious concern in practical usage of ES Modules, but that doesn't mean ES Modules are half-baked, it means the ecosystem has growing pains and migration needs. Many of those growing pains and migration needs are getting solved. It wasn't the ES Module spec's job to magically prevent growing pains/migration needs, it was to set a solid "goal spec" for the end result to migrate to. I think it did a relatively good job at that just as I sometimes lament the growing pains and migrations I experience in my own apps. I blame CommonJS though. CommonJS should never have become such a widely deployed "standard" with no strong compatibility with browser environments built in.
GP was probably referring to the closed rulesets: https://www.snort.org/products
> If you dont have positive feedback for a podcast why comment at all to begin with?

The quality of a podcast is not going to be uniformly positive. So a listener's feedback isn't going to be uniformly positive. It becomes a problem when the primary space for discussing a subject only permits positive feedback. Healthy communities do require negative feedback.

It's ironic that creator of Podbabble couches the creator-based moderation as a means to

> Foster healthy communities. Podbabble lets you moderate, adjust ratings, and flag comments as you see fit.

Too often, allowing the subject of a forum to moderate the forum leads to suppression of valid critique. And good critique can also come from outsiders; those who are not regular listeners.

A better alternative for Podbabble would be to allow creators to sponsor their podcast's forum, perhaps having it be featured more prominently or by removing comment rate limits.
Clearview AI Says It's Bringing Facial Recognition to Schools
I know he gets a lot of hate, but I personally love Rudin's writing style. There are more chatty analysis textbooks like Abbott and Carothers, but the conciseness of Rudin plays nicest with the way I think, and the exercises (in Baby Rudin) are really wonderful. They're hard but I usually felt a genuine sense of accomplishment when I finished one

Chattier authors are nice for providing context and intuition and sometimes details about the historical context, but I personally find them to be very distracting and a bit overwhelming. I don't like using them for much other than a reference or more casual reading. On the other hand, I loved reading a few sentences from Rudin that I didn't quite follow, then pulling out some pen & paper and doing a quick validation, or even going on a drive and munching on them until I understood

That's me though. I'm glad that there seems to be no shortage of introductory analysis texts written in all kinds of styles so that folks can find the ones that work best for them.

As an aside, I think it's a bummer that analysis classes often feel like hazing courses in the math curriculum, leading many mathematicians to despise it. I've been very lucky to have great analysis teachers, or at least ones that care very much about pedagogy over ruthless elitism, and conveying the beauty and fun that lies amid the ugly bit :)

Also, re Rudin: his autobiography is certainly worth reading, if for no other reason than for his account of surviving the Anschluss (the Nazi annexation of Austria during WWII) as a young Jew. One of my favorite bits:

"On the first day of school after the Anschluss several of our teachers and even some students strutted around in their shit-colored storm trooper uniforms. (The Nazi party had been illegal, but had obviously existed.) One of those was the gym teacher whom I had always disliked. He even had a pistol strapped to his belt. A few days later I heard that he had shot himself in the foot. This was one of the very few bits of cheerful news at the time."

It's a fairly harrowing read, and perhaps some of his best writing overall
How far along is your work? Is it academic or commercial? Are you targeting any particular platforms?
So my point being that supposedly around 1990 SF was in an awful decline etc. I wish I was alive in late 1990’s SF
Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?
So "Orlando" is a starter dough? This name is explained nowhere in the article.
Well, we just need to contextualize it in terms they understand. For instance, let's publicize who has had abortions or STD's or watched certain types of porn or sent sexually explicit text messages - let's put it all out there! Oh wait...now people care.

That's how you change the percentages.
cause they aren't reliable, or ever available.
FWIW, I work in security and this skill is becoming very well automated in that domain.

It's imperfect (and always will be), but there's a large overlap between manageable libraries and securable[0] libraries.

[0] In the software-composition analysis field, "securability" is not only about upgrading vulnerable libraries but also about how many vulnerable transitive dependencies you may have to upgrade in future.
As a preamble, I think all current mainstream cryptocurrency implementations are scams (by intent or ignorance). And I see no evidence the technology is going anywhere other than more rebrands to confuse people and steal more money.

However, the article misses something I think by conflating "early internet" with early technical and gaming application rather than "early e-commerce" or something a bit broader.

There was a time when is was not clear why a company would have a website, online presence, or web store, there were lots of failures by people that didn't get it, and lots of naysayers calling bullshit on why companies all wanted to be "on the internet". Turns out there were lots of good reasons.

Crypto is not the same in that it's basically 100% scam at this point, and the cycle is much tighter (as in all tech) between ideas and attempted exploitation. But it is the same in that there are some underlying concepts that get people excited but don't have any real use yet. They probably won't, but in 1997 it was probably pointless for companies to invest in building websites.

Tldr, anything is possible
Funny, i think (but am not arguing i'm correct) it does change probability when the doors change. As i explained[1] in the sister post.

Perhaps this is some mathematical concept? To me i'm viewing every choice as a dice roll. I have no question that the first dice roll was worse than the 2nd. However to me the 2nd is a die with two faces. Two choices, of which both are equally possible.

To look at it differently. The doors changing probability to me sounds like.. imagine two people, the PersonA has this primary scenario. They had 100 doors, chose one, and are then asked if they'd like to switch. PersonB then is asked the second question, of the 2 doors, which do they want? PersonA and B are standing next to each other. The doors are the same for both of them. Why would PersonA have different odds than PersonB? And how could PersonB's odds be any different than 50/50 with no prior history of the doors?

Is there some fundamental difference between the grand idea of probability and "reality" as i'm trying to describe it here?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31535557
Thanks. Honestly, if there were something equivalent
to an iPod nano in size that would be almost ideal.
>Not everyone has option 1 available to them. It’s why school buses exist.

- Not everyone has access to school bus options

- not everyone can drive

- not everyone owns a self driving car

....

I would prefer if we stay on topic and answer at in Hypothetical question.

Or if you have a bias, let use a different domain

Your child is ill and you call for a doctor, but in this universe doctors are a lot of time drunk or are allowed to practice with zero experience, whyat do you chose

1 you call your family doctor that you trust and is not a drunk

2 you call the AI doctor that is terrible compared to a normal doctor but is better then the drunk doctors

3 you realize that it would be so much cheaper then creating an army of AI robot doctors to just fix the problem with drunk doctors, and maybe the fact you are an AI enthusiast won't prevent you think that comparing an AI with a drunk doctor is stupid, that we should have better stats then is better then the worse.
Whenever the incumbent seeks to maintain their position by means other than performance - I think the reference is to e.g. large companies closing down, in an effort to keep revenue streams (think vendor locking, kickbacks, back room board deals, nepotism).

There is certainly harm here, but I agree it's not all about competition - if the incumbent shares their knowledge and resources with others then, while revenue streams might go down for, more people will benefit and as a whole revenue streams will go up, or at least be distributed more fairly.

In a zero sum world, companies either avoiding competition or sharing is a burden, in a non zero sum world it is not.

I think ultimately the author is wrong - the idea that ideas can endlessly reap, it ignores the physical world - there are only so many available acres of land and goods at any given time. He dismisses Peak Oil, etc as a misunderstanding about the limits, but the reality is there are many limits, each one with different consequences as it is passed. Thinking the edge of the city is a block away and then discovering you were wrong is not proof that there is no edge to the city, but it does matter that you have to take a car versus walk a block - the limits are still there.

Arguments about peak resources should focus on the average income pressure a citizen is facing, an infinite number of ideas does zip for you if your citizens are too poor or in debt to be able to purchase the fruits of your ideas. Unless you want to start giving away money at a steadily increasing rate...and that has never worked out.
> If you want a truly secure mailbox, it would be far better to use Google than Proton and just PGP encrypt anything truly sensitive.

You know this? How?
See https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/pes-2020...
Malthus was wrong isn't an argument.

> But the deeper reason is that there’s really no such thing as a natural resource. All resources are artificial. They are a product of technology. And economic growth is ultimately driven, not by material resources, but by ideas.

That sounds far-stretched. The climate isn't an artificial resource, it's very natural and messing it up is going to seriously hinder growth. The fossil fuels that drove our growth for two centuries aren't artificial either, nor are they idea.

The limits to growth is still valid today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
There's no scenario in which growth is perpetual.

If people want to argue about perpetual growth, they should come with numbers based on known estimates of the resource available today. Otherwise, it's just faith and holds no scientific value.
> This is a bit of a sweeping statement. Colonization has a big role to play here also

I agree completely. Colonization set the stage for many of the persistent struggles faced by many in the developing world. But colonial powers didn't teach people in India how to oppress their own people, even if they wasted no time taking advantage of and amplifying the pre-existing situation.

Today, when a country as productive as India (they are self sufficient in food production) still has large numbers of children going hungry, it suggests that there are serious issues with distribution of basic resources like calories. Yes, it has improved, but not nearly enough.

Also, the US is not orders of magnitude better in this way, since we have millions of children relying on "last-resort" food security programs - vestiges of the New Deal - that are under constant threat of being cut. Before these programs were enacted in the 1930s, children were indeed going hungry in the streets of the US, and it continued for a long time afterwards (and sometimes to this day).

If we didn't have these programs, I'm not convinced the situation wouldn't be more like India, since we have equivalent fundamental social ills that drive children into precarious hunger situations.
Yes - we work with simulation of laparoscopic surgery, where several types of knots must be made on stiff inarticulate instruments in constrained spaces at difficult angles. It is quite an incredible skill.
It is clearly impossible to guarantee a kid was never murdered at school. And if you where to try and impose such a restrictive regime on kids as to get to 0 you would certainly due more damage to the the kids then help.
It’s an attempt to dehumanize the tragedy and blunt the response. Every murder in such a shooting is a life removed from loved ones.
As mentioned above, I'm not a cheerleader for America and I think I've quite clearly pointed out a lot of awful qualities about the country - my comparisons weren't "Here's why America is unimpeachably awesome vs. something terrible about China" - I tried to pick especially warty examples for America.

If you want to say "America Bad" hey, I'm with you - but if you want to say "America is worse than China" then I think you've got some pretty rose tinted glasses on.

And, lastly, this entire thread has reeked of whataboutism. Given your objection I tried to actually provide an explanation, so feel free to take that as you will.
Some people renovate before moving in. Might as well customize it before the big move if you can afford it.
>could even be driven remotely by a real person in a data center.

doesn't this totally defeat the purpose of driverless cars? a remotely operated car is not the same thing as driverless. the company operating the car would still have to pay for a human to do work. also, as cool as remotely operated sounds, there are so many ways that is worse than a human in the car. for starters, peripheral vision is lost in remote.
It’s some Julia pseudo code. inv is inverse. Tick is adjoint.
The Saga of Battlecruiser 3000 (2003)
my biggest issue has been battery life. I mean I suppose the heating element requires a decent bit of power, but I have religiously stuck to things that don’t require me to charge them: most notably, I’ve stuck to wired headphones

Most vapes I’ve tried end up lasting a couple hours when turned on unless I spend a whole night charging.
Isn't the dilemma here that these experiments are being done on far too big a scale for the low skill level the cars currently exhibit, and yet if you take that to the companies behind them they would all argue they need more cars to gain more ML experience in order to have a better outcome.

The driving capabilities are impressive from a tech perspective but they're pretty poor in comparison with average or even fairly poor drivers. Given these limited capabilities, the cars are obviously still in an early R&D stage and thus the companies running them ought to be giving far more priority to making the outward impact much less. How do they do that? Staff the human "take over" driver pools at far higher levels, so the take over is always smooth and rapid. Right now it's like those useless chat boxes on websites where they ask you to chat and then find they've got no human to engage with you, as they multiplexed excessively.

Bringing the number of humans down once the systems are good enough is fine and that's how they'll get their commercial rewards but doing it now is premature.
Their ability to hold back infrastructure updates for old but still functional equipment is government tier.
I generally feel the same way, but just to steel man the argument: would your manual code review process have caught this issue?

Sometimes we compare new things against their hypothetical ideal rather than the status quo. The latter is significantly more tractable.
Extremely interesting! I'm really curious to see your process. Congrats mate, you're a selfmade man/woman!