skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The relationships are generally cultivated over time. I have been active in the local dance music underground for all of my adult life, but in this case familiarity was established after showing up at a couple of desert events and hanging out. Later on, I was invited to a house party with some of the same folks where I was accepted into the "family". During all this I would show up at events with my camera, take really good photos, and then give them away, and that got me noticed and made me the unofficial-official photographer of the group. This was several years ago, and the story has advanced considerably since then.

edit- To answer your question directly, it took a few years to really feel that these guys were more than just party friends. I think the catalyst here was us, as a group, navigating through shared tragedy. The 'family' was already formed when I joined, and it definitely took a while to feel like I was someone more than just a guy in the periphery. Gifting is big in my scene, and if you want to speed up the process that is probably the best way to start -- art, food, whatever you can provide that other people might want or need.

edit2- It just occurred to me that gifting is a great lifehack in general for ingratiating yourself into a new group. The key is that it has to be something they genuinely want. For example, I went to visit a friend of mine in Chile and filled up about half of my luggage with candy, alcohol, and some other things that I knew my friend would appreciate. She was so happy and told all her friends, and in an instant I had a whole group of people to hang out with -- who very specifically told me that they appreciated the gifts -- while I was visiting.
I am 100% certain that I am a member of the “naughty” list for some ex-colleagues and the “nice” list for other ex-colleagues. ;)
>Many people don't relocate to continue to be productive

Many people can't relocate to continue to be productive ; due to the cost of living, the substance living that the current system provides to 90% of the population.

If you look at vast swaths of jobs, they are 100% barely substance (work to ensure you dont die, only)
That's a very different sort of Query Engineering than what the author of this post is engaging in; I'm trying to talk about the latter (apparently also called Prompt Engineering).
I wished I had this when first trying (and quickly giving up learning some 6502) back in ~1988.
OMG How did I forget this one! It wasn't Magic, it was Dr J (and I'm from Philly...)
> For the love of God, can we not simply decline, on Hacker News, to take seriously a man who arbitrarily specifies that equity training is 'Maoist'?

No, we - or at least I - do not decline to take seriously someone who (no doubt after many years of fighting the beast) uses a short and descriptive term for something which does in fact have many parallels with the way Mao organised students to take on established institutes. You may not like the comparison but that does not invalidate the fact that what goes under the term "equity training" oftens resembles struggle sessions. He could just as well have compared "equity training" to Scientology "training" intent on "rehabilitating the thetan" of a subject since there are parallels to those practices as well (just replace "body thetans" with "whiteness").
According to what estimates? I'm seeing various numbers but they're suggesting a bit under 2000 gallons of water to make a pound of both almonds and beef. The almonds do have more calories, but that's a really unimpressive number for both.

The reason we talk about almonds is because both of those are wasteful, and both of those are enormous uses of california water, but california has 6% of the country's cattle and 80% of the entire world's almonds.

I can't find a good estimate for milk.
tl;dr: it's Springer Nature kowtowing to the CCP about Taiwan.
The point the OP is making is that wiping out all life on earth is an impossible and silly benchmark. No-one sane thinks 'oh, but we don't have to do anything about climate change because some worms will survive around the thermal vents on the ocean floor'

To 'wipe out' life on earth, you have to crash the moon into it or do something similarly ridiculous - remember that a giant asteroid wasn't enough.

Wiping out all human life is possible, but again I don't think that anyone is comforted by the idea that 0.1% of the population might survive in an arctic cave.

Where we seem to fail is in communicating to folks that don't want to spend money to fix the problem today how their life will become miserable tomorrow.
But the stolen cards are all that's fraudulent, not the high CPU loads.
> what the hell if we can't reflect on such a grievous time

You made the assumption the rest of us aren't. You've written a number of emotionally-laden statements about the lack of virtue amongst the rest of us, but I'm "trolling" when I point out you ignore greater loss of life happening yearly.
Ask HN: I am lost in life. How do I fix this?
I am a software engineer who worked in big tech for about six years. I left my job earlier this year to start a sabbatical to decompress before I did stuff on my own. I generally had very good feedback while I worked but I think I solved harder problems when I was doing advanced physics or calculus in University.

Over the last few weeks though I haven't been feeling very motivated. Doing something of my own sounds tough and finding a job just seems so much easier. There's some framework that exists and you purely have to execute.

I have come to realize that for a very long time I haven't worked on hard problems consistently. Sure I have had spikes where I had to work hard and a lot but those spikes would die out after a few weeks. I was very competitive till the first few years at school and then it somehow dropped.

I also feel that the reward mechanisms in my head have been short circuited. A high paying relatively easy tech job, doom scrolling on social media, getting food delivered in a few minutes and the easy supply of porn on the internet have made delayed gratification tough and have made instant gratification the default state.

What sucks more is that ambition has now been replaced with envy. I see someone doing something like "getting a promotion" and I become envious and I wonder how do I do that / what am I doing but lack the will to execute.

I am hoping(envy & big lack of ambition) this is just these last couple weeks and I snap out of it.

1. How do I fix this? Is this burnout or depression?

2. How do I get ambition back and get rid of the envy?

3. How do I retrain the delayed gratification & work on hard things muscle? I think I'll start going to the gym and lift weights.
Analysis: Will the FTC Get Its Privacy Mojo Back in 2022 (2021)
> Let's just say it is hard to trust a piece of software with my financial data after this.

Definitely don't upload your real financial data to the shared hosted demo. I definitely wouldn't trust the demo with real data.

... but for the actual app, you run it locally on a server you control. You can add whatever form of auth in front of it, whether that's nginx basic auth, or requiring a client certificate, or so on. The app's designed with that in mind, with the user being a trusted person, so of course it's fine for it to dump sqlstate for you to debug.

Since this is AGPL free software, and self hosted, it's about as trustworthy as can be for putting data into it, and if you don't trust it yet, you can read the code and gain such trust.
huh. I stopped using TVs years ago, so never made the transition to a smart one.
Anybody can find a pretty cool number if they don't care about the area code. Now play in "hard mode," which is to obtain a memorable (800) number.

No, (844) or (855), etc, don't count.
It seems that "someone" will go to jail.
And c++11 was very late, so it was already a very old idea at this point.
A friend used to have 256-512-1024.
> most of Alexandrescu's book is more for people showing off than for people doing useful work.

I hate Alexandrescu's most famous book for its mismatch of title ("Modern C++ Design") and content ("Unwieldy C++ template tricks you should probably avoid").
Recent and related:

Once in a Lifetime - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31542502 - May 2022 (40 comments)

Edit: – well, why not:

Brian Eno‘s list of words that didn’t exist in 95 (scroll halfway) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26026726 - Feb 2021 (4 comments)

So you want to contact Brian Eno? (2000) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24718365 - Oct 2020 (78 comments)

Generative Music – Brian Eno (1996) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24702201 - Oct 2020 (15 comments)

Free, Open Spaces: Brian Eno’s Favourite Records (2016) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18289129 - Oct 2018 (35 comments)

Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt's 'Oblique Strategies' (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14917458 - Aug 2017 (5 comments)

How Brian Eno managed to urinate in Marcel Duchamp's “Fountain” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14708316 - July 2017 (27 comments)

Brian Eno: Composers as Gardeners - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14288339 - May 2017 (35 comments)

Brian Eno Plays the Universe - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12050224 - July 2016 (8 comments)

Just A New Fractal Detail In The Big Picture (2015) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12027055 - July 2016 (175 comments)

Brian Eno Examines the Ecology of Culture in John Peel Lecture [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384526 - Oct 2015 (9 comments)

What Books Could Be Used to Rebuild Civilization? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9084466 - Feb 2015 (112 comments)

Oblique Strategies: Brian Eno’s Prompts for Overcoming Creative Block - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9017960 - Feb 2015 (13 comments)

Get creatively unstuck with Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies on a web app I built - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3637545 - Feb 2012 (1 comment)

Brian Eno: What is art? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1389872 - May 2010 (2 comments)

An audience with Brian Eno - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1073122 - Jan 2010 (8 comments)
There are already plenty of jobs like that though? E.g. economists seem to have much the same issue.
That "safe (by default)" aspect of a given programming language isn't free. It's similar to the security of a system that comes at the expense of its usability. The direction C++ developed itself was to provide performance and usability. A programming language that puts safety first has to be more than a useful tool, it has to be a mentor at best and a bureaucrat at worst. When touting the safe languages people have to be aware of survivorship bias, that countless projects never got the chance to be developed due to the too high of a burden of doing it properly in them (i.e. in a safe manner, in the way "safe" is defined by language designers). But then again, there may be cases when this development cost may not be that bothersome compared to other aspects (e.g. a corporation willing to hire more developers to compensate for the lost effort if thus it gets to hire fast and cheap - pretty much whomever manages to please the compiler, no in-depth skills screening necessary, the shipped code guaranteed to be safe anyway).
It definately could happen if major nations compete for ever-shinking habitable land or water and trigger a nuclear war.

Do you expect that several hundred million people who's previous land of habitation is now unable to support human life will just lie down and die peacefully?
Hi! Author here - thanks for the feedback. I added the following footnote to the article to clarify:

> I use the term "hazing" broadly to mean any way of excluding members from joining an organization. For example, a job interview is a form of "hazing".

In response to "How can you trust and be loyal to someone you just met?" I'll provide a personal example: I recently travelled to a different city, and asked a friend of mine for sightseeing recommendations because he used to live there. During the conversation, he mentioned that his ex-girlfriend still lives there, and offered to put me in touch with her. I then asked his ex-girlfriend (who I had only one prior interaction with!) to be my emergency contact while I was on my trip, which she agreed to, because of the shared trust they had established in their prior relationship, and their familiarity with me in our mutually overlapping social circles. This is what I mean that a person's entanglements are more important than their attributes.
If 10% of people have the means to be willing to pay 20x for a home constructed in a way that 90% of people can't afford, that is what your average homebuyer wants.
Money used to purchase inventory is also usually taxed as profit, which is a further disincentive.
No, he used SSEYO's Koan software
How about the Windows XP "OOBE" (out-of-box experience) music that plays during initial setup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNXzMBA9VU4
Projects coded in Rust will remain in Rust, too. Projects coded in Go will remain Go. Projects in Java will remain Java.

So, the advice above is just to avoid all languages (which, by the evidence, he does, seeming to know nothing meaningful about any).

There is an exception, though. Projects in C have frequently transitioned to C++, often with great success, notably Gcc and Gdb.
Fripp did Vista...
They don't mind using the third dimension, like dropping down to your knees or hiding near/on a ceiling. I've had one try to go behind my back while I was following it.

They're clever enough to not move once hidden so making noise, light, or flailing around nearby won't make them fly away and reveal their hiding spot. But that's also their downfall when you do spot them.

Cursed fucking creatures. They're optimized to perfectly ruin a good night's sleep, and for no good reason. A sufficiently pissed off human in an enclosed space always wins. The poor things get hungry first.
I'd support your comments in the general sense as you seem to intend.

This is the dichotomy of Open Source. The tool tinkerers can build fantastic things - but only what they want because it is their free time and effort. If it happens to align with the market, then great, if not, too bad.

My personal favourite exception is Blender. As a long running project it seemed to get more and more aligned with the market until the industry saw it was "close enough" to start supporting it.

If we could replicate this for other tools it'd be nice.
A few pointers:

1. Educate yourself in Personal Finances in general

2. As part of #1 above, you will learnt that Personal Finances and Saving and Investing are not one and the same, but 3 different concepts. Hint: Investing is a subset of Saving, and Saving is a subset of Personal Finances.

3. Personal Finances has a lot more to do with your own personality, psychology, behaviors, and priorities than anything else you can learn anywhere.

4. Start by reading Suze Orman's early books, before she became ultra famous. That's for Personal Finances. Savings is nothing more than the delta differential between cash in minus cash out. IMO the more you save, the better. As far as investing is concerned, pick up a few online college-level courses on investing, pay attention to asset allocation/portfolio management. Some would say it's an overkill, I don't. How important is your money and retirement and everything relating to that?

YMMV
Will the FTC's Rulemaking Push Result in New Privacy Rules (2021)
Also, we need to show that the data costs, dev costs, training costs, maint, etc, and inference time costs are cheaper than human alternatives for some reasonable loss function, for most tasks.

If you look at the FN and FP rates for many tasks, the SoTA Transformer models are all VERY high vs humans and inference times are maybe only 10x.

At 100x or 1000x the transistors, data, etc and even at 1/10 the loss, ML solutions are likely not competitive for many tasks.
While a LLM doesn't have the ability to perform real world experiments, it remains to be seen whether an LLM can "reason" over a contextual input, combined with its own outputs. There is no fundamental reason it can't, and no fundamental reason to think that it can. Anecdotal observation from AI Dungeon and similar tools would put this as a "maybe".
In the 1950s there were essentially no computers……. That’s where we’re headed first.
> whereas a human can take arbitrary time to think,

Are you saying that GPT-6 would be less intelligent than a human, because we could give it an arbitrary deadline within which to answer the question, while not restricting a human that way? That doesn't sound like a fair test.

I'm probably misrepresenting your position here, and maybe what you're trying to say is "If you gave both GPT-6 and a human as long as they needed go away and think about a problem, the human could use that time to sit and think creatively about the problem, whereas GPT-6 would either know the answer, or not".

That's a reasonable intuition and a fair experiment, but I think it hinges on the question of "What does a human do when they go away and think about a problem?". Could it be that they are just clearing their mind of other distractions, and trying to look at the problem from multiple perspectives, which is something that a machine could do more efficiently?

In other words, the fact that a human might need to go away and take arbitrary time to think about a problem is a sign that it is the human that lacks efficient general intelligence, not this GPT-6.

> can go out and perform experiments,

Again, it seems unfair to compare GPT-6 in a deliberately sealed box to a human who is allowed to go away and talk to other humans and use tools and resources that we wouldn't trust GPT-6 with.

Putting it another way, if you met someone who had never performed an experiment before, would you think they were not intelligent?

> can Google/GPT things themselves, etc.

This is an almost Kafkaesque criticism. Are you saying GPT-6 isn't intelligent because it doesn't have access to GPT-6's intelligence, but humans do? Or the fact that humans can go away and use Google means they are more intelligent than GPT-6 which has Google search results built into its "brain" in the first place?

> it’s just a big blob of inanimate knowledge.

You're just a big blob of inanimate knowledge. Ahem, sorry, what I mean is: Why does knowledge have to be "animate" to be legitimate?
Tbf everyone works hard though, including poor people who work multiple jobs so I don't think it's merely a "high status" thing.

Also, being a grad student is hardly "high status" tbf.
Moving Forward on Basic Income (2016)
You seem to be once again way way way way far way from anything I'm saying & spinning your own yarn. I was decidedly not talking about physical size. I was talking about energy capacity, as I have been this whole time.

> I'm pretty sure that "cost per distance travelled" unit is directly related to cost. I know you're trolling, I'm just debunking you

It's not though, not without a host of other later factors. Knowing what the inputs themselves cost us, being able to compare what we pay for energy, is the point of this article. Not just calculating work done.

And it's especially important given the radical range of efficiency different EVs have. Everyone should have a common understanding of what they're paying for, but that's much much harder when the ranges of efficiency are so vastly different for different EVs and across different EV driving conditions.

I'm not trolling. You're being a jerkwad to me, & rude, & you can't argue a single point straight & misdirect again and again.

> EV users have no reason to measure anything in an archaic USA-only unit for a dying technology.

In most countries, we'd show "liters" of electricity. The point is to use a common frame of reference that's already known. You're once again ignoring the obvious to try to win cheap points & create disbelief, & it's still misdirection & cheap & detracts the sense that you are arguing anything earnestly.

> converting gallons to Joules (e.g. 4GJ per tank of gas) or kWh (e.g. 1000kWh per tank of gas [this is a realistic number, BTW])

This is reasonable, except three things: 1) you're measuring tanks not actual units people know, 2) your "realistic" tank of gas (at 20g) has 50% more energy than the EPA says it does, and 3) perhaps most problematic, no one frigging has any intuitive sense of what a kWh is and BOTH electric & gas drivers would be totally clueless. I generally like the idea, but it's just not practical or helpful to unify on the thing almost no one has any real grasp of.

> is the right unit for electricity is as trollishly anachronistic as measuring gasoline in bales of hay

Please, by all means, disagree, but you needent result to personalizing your insults. Anachronistic, sure, whatever, but you have repeatedly personally demegrated me by calling this trolling, and it's inciteful, rude, crass, obnoxious, unproductive, and low. Flabbergastingly rude. I am being quite serious & have elaborated again & again a simple understandable virtue that i want: understandability & comparability. You don't seem to have any interest in trying to meet the population where they are & to try to make what we already have a grasp of useful & helpful in explaining where we're going & now new things work, fine, but I dont insult you over it.

You haven't debated as single point, you've just asserted your own beliefs & mocked me. I desperately wish you would stop.
The Rust community is, uh, a little in denial about how similar Rust and C++ are (and how much more similar Rust is to C++ than to C)
Anchorage, Alaska. Probably will not be hugely affected by climate changes, strategically placed for transport logistics, and already has a large population by Alaska standards, so there is a fair amount of inertia already.

They also have a "resource extraction" tax credit, and I'm really hoping someone will open a server farm and say they're extracting the cold.
Late observation, but...

This feels like the perfect dishwasher to wash your glassware after using your Juicero!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juicero
Why the requirement for multiple regions as opposed to multiple zones?
A few notes about this special event.

A. Hack a sat requires a team work. It is humanly impossible for a single individual to get to the finals.

B. It takes more than just hacking skills, team must have geometry wizards and astronomy buffs to tackle challenges related to calculating orbiting locations and such.

C. Teams I am familiar with are obviously super strong in their professional life, and I am honored to work with some for over a decade in my day to day.
Not knowing anything about the language as it is today does not recommend your judgment as to how it compares to other languages.
Watching the Federal Conservative race and the Ontario election I would say that the various mainstream Conservative parties are self-provoking. And it's interesting to see that they might be attacked from the right so as to split the Right/Centre vote as the NDP and Liberals split the Left/Centre vote. The existence of the NDP is a wonderful thing for the Cons, and it's only fair that the Cons get to fight over "their" votes as well.