skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"The only way the graph doesn’t tell us anything about heat is if we intentionally separate it from any context or larger system of knowledge."

That's nonsense. Temperature isn't a direct function of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even climatologists don't believe it's that simple. That's why there's so much debate about the true value of ECS, that's why they spent much of the 2010s trying to explain the pause in global warming by reference to heat absorption of the oceans, etc (they since changed the mind and now argue that they were simply failing to correctly measure temperatures for decades, which is even worse).

The false belief that climate = CO2 levels is one of the things that creates skepticism about climatology, because anyone who bothers to check the actual facts instead of relying on "high school level chemistry" will immediately see that it's false. Moreover if it were actually that simple then there'd be no need to worry because if you simply map CO2 level increases to temperature increases then you don't get anything even close to a doomsday scenario. All the "we need to reach net zero yesterday" type claims are predicated on hypothetical and quite complicated feedback loops that involve far more than just a straight mapping of temperature=CO2 levels.
That still leaves getting it on the field. Overfertilization is a problem and as mentioned, the plant will require that Nitrogen in proportion to the amount of CO2 to even begin to compensate the lack of Nitrogen. With CO2 being 50% higher that means you'd already have to fertilize 50% more to get the same Nitrogen to CO2 ratio as preindustrial levels. And that number isn't going to get better anytime soon. I don't think that adding 50% fertilizer on top of the current fertilization is a solution, overfertilization already causes way to many problems. I've had to stay of the tap water more than once as a child because a farmer didn't follow the fertilization limits.
this was a weird take then, and it's still a weird take now.

I'll admit, I'm glad we've moved past the open letter era, but as somebody that got hired to write a lot of them, I think the part the writer of this particular article got really close to understanding why this works was here at the end:

"But like too many other companies, Slack has been drinking its own Kool-Aid for too long. It seems the company believes it's the greatest thing to come along in recent years, and that it's irreplaceable. And that's a mistake. "Slack is here to stay," the ad concludes. Guess it's time to prove it."

The point of this kind of ad is, in part, to rally supporters, enthusiasts, and employees under a common goal. Given that it's 2022 and Slack is still the dominant player in the space (maybe Discord is an emergent challenge) AFAIC, it did its job.
I'm a statistician, and I have to say, I agree with the fundamental premise of the author:

The problems with null hypothesis significant testing (NHST) are a direct result of two things:

1. the false air of objectivity it provides

2. the lack of consideration of the relative likelihood of the data under any alternative

I also agree that Pearson, Fisher, and Neyman knew what they were doing when they appealed to these methods' "objectivity" to support their terrible views.

I also find it just absolutely hilarious that Fisher's adamant opposition to Bayesian inference was the (in his opinion) absurdity of the uniform prior distribution, and yet one of his most famous contributions (Maximum likelihood estimation) is essentially the same result you'd get from the Bayesian estimate of the most likely parameter with a uniform prior.

If anyone is interested in the history of this stuff along with a discussion of the philosophical meaning of probability from the same author, his book Bernoulli's Fallacy is a pretty good read. My only qualm with it is the lack of much exposure on how to actually do Bayesian inference or a discussion on what it's like to do it in a modern setting. There's a brief few pages at the very end that mention things like Markov Chain Monte Carlo and the fact that most modern Bayesian inference is necessarily numerical approximations to the posterior, not the analytical solution (but that's not necessarily a bad thing nor is it an escape-able problem).

If you want a book that makes many of the same philosophical arguments about probability but also backs it up with math and descriptions on how to do Bayesian inference, Edwin Jaynes's Probability Theory: The Logic of Science is for you. It's quite literally a modern cult classic. People that read this book tend to go out and evangelize for it.

My final comment is that there is a place for frequentist methods, even if you're a modern Bayesian. The theory of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (one of the key methods in making modern Bayesian inference work) is exactly the domain of frequentist probability: Long runs of repeated things. Many of the diagnostic tools for assessing whether the inferences of MCMC results can be trusted are hinged on results from the frequentist interpretation and are steeped in their strange-ness. For instance, the lack of an issue is taken lack of evidence of an issue rather than evidence of no issue. The interconnected-ness of the two is unfortunately missing from the author's work (that I have seen).
Can you point me to a link about FDA approved LSD treatment for depression?
As I said later in the comment: if someone gets read-only access to the database. Certainly you won’t be able to guess that quickly through Fossil’s web interface. If you could, this would be a catastrophe. As it is, it’s only very bad.

These sorts of things are all about defence in depth. Some have said: “What’s wrong with storing passwords in cleartext? No one else can access them anyway!” But then a bug in another part of your system allows exfiltration of the database. It’s that kind of thing. Weak password storage is also as much a problem for other systems as it is for one’s own system, due to password reuse.

I gather from a little more research that current CPUs can probably do over ten million SHA-1 hashes per second (some extrapolation of old figures there), and consumer-grade GPUs over twenty trillion. This will crack even moderately strong passwords in a very short time.

For comparison, Argon2 is designed as a proper password hash (resistant against acceleration) and its recommendation is to make passwords take a few hundred milliseconds to check (increasing the number of iterations as hardware gets faster). So maybe three per second, which basically renders any cracking whatsoever infeasible.
Indeed, nobody is perfect. But we have the right to judge people who intentionally place themselves in the public spotlight and insist on leader-like behavior from them.

> I hope those people won't stop the next ego manic from trying to change the world.

You are describing a super villain here! I certainly hope we would try to stop them. “Advancement at any price” is how we end up with dictators and fascists.
> Is it lagged thermal expansion of the ocean water as it catches up to the air in heat?

I've read that this will be the primary contributor. Might want to double check the answers you're getting here.
The Sesame protocol lets the linked device generate its own keypair, the only thing in common is your user id. Each private key never leaves the respective device.

A talk on the technicals can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnwSovjYMs&t=1762s
You don't think we're gonna want to move around?
I would like a more comprehensive challenge to the concept of dirty money as I think it exists on shaky grounds as well as the entire anti-money laundering framework.

Basically, people are expecting crypto institutions to flag, freeze, and return funds deposited, funds whose partial provenance can be read in real time but cannot be stopped in advance. This uses an evolving set of homegrown or contracted out software to detect to find any red flags in the history of provenance.

My issue with this is how do you know the state hasn't already deemed those funds to be magically cleaned after passing through the state's "due process" mixer? An easy one to follow - simply because we respect it - is when funds are seized by the US Department of Justice and then auctioned off again by the US Marshalls. Wow, two more transactions in the chain of provenance that contained red flags before the seizure, but now must be ignored forever after because of the re-auctioning?

Okay, so what about when a more obscure authority does the same. The island nation of Vanautu seizes and reintegrates crypto back into the economy. Or China, whose due process we don't respect, does it, but is a sovereign who we must respect. Are these funds clean? Can a human tell, can software tell? Can any sovereign determine funds are clean, perhaps pushing this to its logical extreme of becoming a funds cleaner?

Is it worth doing this kind of flagging at all?
The implication was that DNC emails were evidence of corruption, yet no GOP emails were leaked, ergo no corruption there.

Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option.
would be good to know more in general, if you'd like to share

I'd like to know, specifically about my last point
> "But for online businesses I guess at some point you'd be selling to US customers, so would that complicate things?"

because selling anything online like SaaS / digital products / etc, would be very easy to get a few american customers and that would incur corporate tax?
at least for that portion of the revenue ?
> and gives dates with lots of caveats/uncertainties attached to them (that the media never reports)

When is FSD coming? According to Musk, he's said every year for the last seven years running that it is coming "this year" or "months away", and the only "caveat" he's ever mentioned is "subject to regulatory approval", and that is clearly factually incorrect. FSD is not, and certainly was not "complete but for legal approvals".

Unless you have some other explanation for what "You will be able to drive coast to coast, with zero driver interventions, this year".

At some point repeatedly "aiming big" becomes a caricature, and then eventually seen for the BS/hype it is.
SPOILER ALERT

.margorp dab a nevig saw eh ,rorre na ekam t'ndid laH
> Too easy to say "let me just modify this thing here in production"

This sounds crazy to me, like saying "it's too easy to say 'let me just poop on the floor right here' instead of going to the bathroom properly". What!? I can sorta vaguely understand why someone might think that's a little easier in the moment, but someone who has that little control of themselves needs serious help, if not a good old-fashioned kick out the door. That is not a technology problem, it's a human problem -- and a major one.
I agree. For me, it comes from a place of negative emotions (like the article explained).

I want:

1. to have a family

2. to provide security for my family

3. to provide a reasonable education/upbringing for my family

All of these things are becoming more expensive if you take the traditional route.
1000 times yes! I am a spatial data expert but only a some-time OSM editor and I still have yet to figure out how to create a polygonal feature more complex than a single building footprint. The theoretical advantage of a unified topology model of just nodes/edges where polygons and lines share core geometry is nullified by cultural rules that say "don't do that" to editors (I had a bunch of parks that shared a boundary with a road reverted with nasty notes). The current setup is not just hard for processors, it's hard for non-experts to understand and therefore a higher barrier than a simple polygon model would be.
The real crime is the damage to the next generation's minds. Their expectation that all meaningful software must have an organization and online infrastructure behind it and the general infantilization of computer users is honestly kind of terrifying.
Hitting my mid-40’s with a reasonably successful multi decade career in tech and I’ve recently realized that some gigantic percentage (plurality, maybe majority) of all the hard work has gone into competing against the people around me for opportunities. Not into actual value creation for others, not in service of others, purely focused on beating out other people for the chances.

I’m not sure how to reorient myself. It’s extremely disturbing to look back and think that all the good stuff was a side effect of spending enormous energy trying to outcompete others for opportunity. I don’t want to keep doing things this way, but I also don’t know how to change.
Large discussion about this topic here 2 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31619010 (210 points/182 comments)
Big tech offices in London are chock full of Americans - especially at staff/sr manager and above level

Both Stanford and Berkley are isolated from areas they are located in and you have to be student to enjoy cultural life inside. You may visit art gallery/museum in Stanford (it's nice!) but that's pretty much it.
> you don't even need to worry too much about getting scammed, as long as the scammer legitimately lives and spends in a poorer community.

Then you will have made a criminal in that community richer, which is unlikely to make that community a safer, happier or more self-reliant place.
Interesting, per ISO standard initiated by IEC:

⏻: "IEC 60417-5009, the standby symbol (line partially within a broken circle), indicates a sleep mode or low power state." [0,1]

⏼: "IEC 60417-5010, the power on-off symbol (line within a circle), is used on buttons that switch a device between on and fully off states." [0,2]

Of note, the slightly different IEEE standard using these symbols was inactivated 2020-03-05.[3] Unicode lists both standards for the character definitions.[4]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_symbol

1. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iec:grs:60417:5009

2. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iec:grs:60417:5010

3. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1621/3344/

4. https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2300.pdf

5. https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/character.jsp?a=23FB

6. https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/character.jsp?a=23FC
Is Everything an MLM? (2019)
Elon Musk threatens to scrap $44bn Twitter deal over 'material breach'
A new interpretation of the word of God could. Cognitive dissonance is an equally large issue in my opinion.

Justification isn't really part of the position, it's how you arrived at it.
Looks like the funding market isn't completely dead!

Good for them, product is very interesting. I'm going to keep an eye on this, its a very interesting space
Small update from the creator of the twitter handle [1]:

Working on getting @newsycombinator
unsuspended(!) – got hit with a trademark infringement

[1]: https://twitter.com/riklomas/status/1533811106015223821
The point of work is to contribute to society. Sustaining your own life is a side-effect, though it is an important one, as it allows you to contribute more to society. Overworking can negatively impact how much you can contribute, so in that sense it should be avoided.
> async is final unfortunately

This is wrong. Async traits and iterators will be huge improvements to the language, and there is more in progress.

Can you provide examples of copy/unsafe being required for complex problems?
Lua has chosen a minimalistic 'batteries-excluded' strategy to ease the integration into host platforms. That strategy worked wonderfully - Lua was always a popular choice for embedding into various platforms (Roblox, Ngnix, Neovim, VLC, Wireshark...).

Python made interfacing just about anything a simple job, which is why it succeeded as "glue" language and automation tool. It is a completely different area than what Lua was designed for even though they are both called a scripting language.

In an alternate timeline Lua could have been used in JavaScript's place though. The web would have benefited from Lua's simplicity and speed.
Exactly. Linked lists work well for secondary ordering of elements.
"This may in turn cause massive disruptions to human societies."

The word "may" is doing a lot of work here. Lots of things may cause massive disruptions to human society. One thing we can say with certainty: the mitigation efforts being proposed to reduce CO2 levels will cause massive disruptions to human society.
> i think the release of the films marks a rather critical point in how the books were viewed.

Two years before the films (same source) in a 1999 poll of Amazon.com customers, The Lord of the Rings was judged to be their favourite "book of the millennium".
Musk waived due diligence in making his offer, and Twitter clearly relied on that waiver when accepting it.
IIRC both Oxygen and Genie use HTTP.jl
> - Consciousness is an emergent property of computation

That is quite a leap. I hope it is true but you never know what kind of quantum/other shenanigans sneaky evolution has latched on to to end up with the brains of today.
I am still not 100% sure if “sigma male grindset” is a joke or not. It seems like one of those things that started as parody, but sincere believers showed up and took it over.
Could you please stop posting like this? It's fine to make your point once but this sort of unsubstantive harangue doesn't add anything interesting, and it's nasty.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Right? The emotion of the response seems completely out of scale to the ambition of the reform proposed. "Maybe polygons?"
xterm can actually display before graphics in Tektronics mode.

https://github.com/bennetyee/TekGraphics
The possible solution is for the world to place limits on making, buying, and selling things. Use less, buy less, travel less, mend your own clothes, grow some of your own food (if possible), be able to repair and use your device for 20 years, turn off your devices at night, use mass transit, don't use the AC, buy furniture that lasts for decades, etc.

That won't happen because of an economic collapse and no politician would ever get elected with this thinking (at least in the US). Plus, you've now taken away many freedoms that are inherit in democratic societies.

To me green technologies are better than nothing but there's really a consumption problem. And I'm completely guilty of it as well.
I put in a new front porch on my house and go for a walk during the work day and then sit outside for a bit with an iced tea.

After that I feel like I do better work for the rest of the afternoon.

I don’t post on social media much but maybe I should…

Perhaps the folks not “hustling” don’t attract or ask for much attention?
In the bullet list there's

"Being “off” and doing other hobbies when not at work."

for many people, side hustles are their hobby. Side hustles don't have to be your hobby though.
Pretty sure those technologies haven't stopped the flow of air travel recently. They just made business more efficient.

You honestly can't try and equate this with Elon almost single handedly bring the EV car market to the planet.

It either shows you are being disingenuous at best or ignorant in the subject matter at worse.
The problem with a lot of these posts is that there's a spectrum of people.

On one end you have the sigma grind who work all the time and on the other those who don't do anything and complain.

Both are toxic in their own ways since accomplishment is so critical to self-worth. Yet, at the same time you have to listen to your body and rest.

I find that the happiest people don't read the hustle culture and just focus on their family and are happy with what they have.

The problem is some of us can't help but work so we have to accept that grinding is better than self-loathing. For some that's a false dichotomy, for others it is truth. That's sad.
It's an inevitable part of late-stage capitalism, no? Union busting, off-shoring, and imported labor are all needed to prop up the system. Pair this with ever-increasing costs of living and you get a collapsing society. But hey, at least you get cheap goods right?
We have need for stimuli not a need for movement. The movement being a surrogate for the need for stimuli or accessing where the stimuli is. We can reduce it directly to stimuli if that remains a need.
Unfortunately despite its claim "Bypass any paywall", it doesn't.

Try articles on https://www.nytimes.com and you will get:

12ft has been disabled for this site
I'd argue that sex is an even stronger fundamental urge.

Yet there's no right to sex, and rape is illegal.
Of course. Apologies for being obtuse. Just... I don't know if you've ever looked at the data but can you explain why the emissions fell faster under both Bush and Trump than their Democratic successors?

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

Going by the actual emissions, the decrease seems to be slowing when a Democratic candidate gets elected. Not to speak of Clinton under whom emissions actually increased, not decreased!
Thanks; I do not believe we are discussing the same topic though - what I'm discussing (modern Encarta Atlas or Compton Atlas) is primarily about content, whereas I believe you're primarily talking about code.

I understand the dislike of walled gardens; I do not believe they have any bearing whatsoever on the gap that I've brought up though.
Async works great in other languages. I adore being able to get high performance out of a single thread in javascript thanks to its async IO model.

Rust's problem with async isn't that async itself is a bad idea. The problem is that rust got halfway through adding async support and then didn't finish the job.

If you have half a house, your problem isn't that houses are a bad idea. You just need a builder. (Or, a wrecking ball. Which I'd be more than happy with at this point.)
>What about the people hurt as a result of the intelligence the CIA collects via the spyware?

How exactly was someone "hurt" because of said spyware?

>How did they reach this conclusion

The CIA (or any TLA) does not comment on ways & means of investigations. That's just silly to think they would as it would expose those ways & means.

I'm all for being critical of anything spoken out of which ever side of the mouth the CIA PR people are speaking, but I'm not sure you're arguments are really effective here.
> It doesn't actually even matter if they did this. The only thing that matters is that they are physically capable of doing so.

Exactly. It could be the truth or Russian psyops to undermine the trust among users, which happens very often from all sides involved, not just during war time. It should be noted that all governments hate private communications systems, except when they suit their needs.
That's one more good reason to push for systems offering full e2e encryption by default.
For a little bit of nuance, those non-m users would consist of:

- bots, as you say

- "legit" bots e.g. customer service

- inactive accounts

- accounts that use some alternate client (tweetdeck or whatever)

- API users

- possibly web accounts using ad block (depending on whether twitter measures literal ad views vs. "users logging in with a client that could show ads"

- ...

> Elon could be right that over half of Twitter's users are fake, and Twitter could be right that only 5% of the MDAUs are fake. While both could be right in their assertions, Elon is in the wrong in the big picture. All of this has been disclosed publicly and Twitter never claims that only 5% of users are bots, just 5% of monetizable users. Elon's claims of malfeasance or obfuscation are wrong.

That's exactly my conclusion as well