skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think a lot of us suffer from "Someone on the internet is wrong!" syndrome. Frequently that person is me, but I will stand my ground and argue it until proven wrong.

It's socratic, good way to learn, by questioning everything and letting others question you. But it's not a productive way to spend your days and nights, so I'm happy to let the conversations die after a few days.
Well, there are some urgent issues where the money could be better spent, like solving the climate disaster, starvation, wars, automating most work. But after that, LHC++ is pretty much a top priority.
> If we solve physics we solve everything

A particle collider does not, in fact, "solve physics" in any meaningful way, especially not in terms of practical applicability.

> if we solve fusion we have solved fusion.

The comment you are replying to has explained in some detail why this is not true.
I feel like you haven't heard of BOFH.

Bastard Operator From Hell -- A famous IT trope. Which was typically a sysad for a mainframe/Mini-Computer... Usually on a University Campus....

Think Lazlo from Wierd Science, but an asshole.

I actually worked with a BOFH. (Sadly he had a heart attack on the CalTrain Station in Mountain View, and died.)

He was the AS/400 admin for a place where we manufactured all of SUNs Software (meaning made the SUNos CDs manuals packaging etc) and this guy was a BOFH

Sales folk would call up to the helpdesk and request a password reset.

This one time, he set the users password to "STUPID!" ...

I fired him for that.

He had a heart attack shortly thereafter....

:-(
They don't specify any support life or security lifetimes in advance. Typically what they do lately is update the previous two versions with security updates so you get a couple extra years lagging behind. But unlike MS or a lot of Linux distros there is no support promise and no EOL date.
That's a bit not fair to languages different than lisp because of their more complicated syntax.

Clojure simplicity is just superb in this case.
What about *.neocities.org/?[0]

[0] https://neocities.org/
Almost same is here. Somehow decent desktop was always ~$1k here in Russia. Progress was fast in 90x - I was working as a student to get dx386 and finally assembled 486. Then had some Pentium which eventually got fried by PSU (even mouse died that time).
So I assembled Phenom x4 925 back in 2009, had GTS250 for a long time.
Upgraded slowly some components (like HDD when run out of space), switched to GTX 1060... Still works fine for everything for me.
I could easily upgrade everything but I don't like to spend time moving everything to new system :)
I agree that the opportunity cost of dropping 100B on this is very high, but what if the new data enables tech that can't otherwise be achieved?

We could definitely postpone this work and invest in more impactful work in the present. It might be worth reconsidering this once we've worked through climate change, energy consumption, and the drinking water crises we're facing.
Farewell to two pivotal figures: The founder of Inmos and the co-creator of MIME
The Final Frontier: Talking Exascale with Oak Ridge’s Jeff Nichols
Yes, I agree. I had a "humanities" style education - lots of essay writing, deep reading of classics in many languages. When I was 16, I burned my maths books under the apple tree. Then during my PhD I had to learn maths again. It taught me what a real argument was. Before then, I was blindly wandering in a sea of text. After it, I still appreciate the classics, but I understand the structure of argumentation far better.
Good creative analysis. I think time not distance may be adjustment we
will make first. Barring a catastrophic technology collapse I doubt
at this stage of human development we'll withdraw so fully from
wilderness and remote rural settlement. But perhaps the change we can
embrace is just chilling out. Other than firefighters and paramedics,
lifestyles where people "need" to be in a city 1000 miles away in a
few hours are untenable. Slower transport like rail and airships will
likely make something of a comeback in less dense countries.
(Not the OP)

Yes, that's right, but the problem with trying to approximate a function you don't know is that you don't know how well you've approximated it. You're left having to, well, approximate, the accuracy of the approximation.

That's why everyone in machine learning trains their models and then tests them on a held-out test set. In theory, the error on the test set should predict the error on the true distribution (and that's under PAC-Learning assumptions). Unfortunately the way this is done in practice is sloppy and uninformative. For example, researchers usually have access to the test set during training, they split the training/test set to 80/20% so that the error calculated on the test set does not generalise well to truly unseen data, etc.

Bottom line: all this approximation stuff is great in theory, but not so good in practice. Or, rather, in theory machine learning systems have almost perfect accuracies, in practice we have no idea how good they are.
>that it is in fact in how it helps you to think better

And we do use that in everyday life.
Learning higher maths doesn't help us solve problems we encounter all the time or everyday, at least not directly. But it helps us frame them and our thinking conceptually in a quantitative way, and maybe even sometimes in a qualitative one, which is incredibly helpful generally.
As a low-energy quantum physicist, I completely agree: Experimental high-energy physics has become primarily an industrial subsidy scheme[1], and if we want the highest chance of reaching a grand unified theory, it seems the money would be much better spent elsewhere (cosmology, space-based observatories, research positions for young physicists without publish-or-perish incentives to run for the latest fad).

The short history of physics in TFA is spot on: Einstein and the quantum pioneers added abstractions to build physical theories with prediction power, whereas current high-energy physics theory seems to be mostly a mathematical exercise. This has been confirmed by numerous insiders, including by Hossenfelder as mentioned in the article, and Lee Smolin ("The trouble with physics") who is also a theoretical physicist.

Things have changed a lot since accelerators became a must-have for high-energy physics: Today we have detectors and computing power that let us observe the natural experiment of the universe with a precision and diligence that would be impossible when LHC was commissioned. I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit, and let them use the tools they could build themselves, than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations.

[1]: The industrial subsidy angle is not touched upon in TFA, but it is clear that there is a large number of people and companies making a good living from mega-physics, and talking to colleagues in the field, I get the distinct impression that it is not always they physicist walking in the front when asking for more machines.
I don’t get how that is inconsistent with the root comment? If the median senior earns 200k, then it’s reasonable that someone junior would earn 80k and a top engineer at DeepMind would earn more.
This seems like a feature just waiting to be abused.
Rust’s explosive popularity comes with challenges
I wonder if youtube will remove all the trailers.

Seems if it's in the courts, then their policy is rather clear.
Several people have answered this from the angle of why the cost is large, but missed the other (necessary) angle - the benefits are also massive and well understood. Plenty of potential projects have huge costs but they don't exist because the benefits aren't big enough, highways exhibit a sort of survivor bias in the mega project world.

Highway systems create massive economic benefits that are relatively simple to calculate, just in the raw # hours saved which massively increases productivity. This can be well captured by the state through taxes or (less frequently) by private industry through tolls - i.e. the people that direct their construction.

Other mega projects have much less certain benefits, or the benefits are harder to capture by those with the ability to allocate resources because incentives aren't sufficiently aligned.
IIRC php/hack had it before jsx existed:

https://docs.hhvm.com/hack/XHP/introduction

https://github.com/phplang/xhp
As someone born in a country near Russia, 5 squadrons of F-35 change my life in a more significant way that 1 LHC.

Nit: MSFT market cap is ~210 LHC.
> To minimize privacy concerns related to usage, you first have to add privacy as an additional design concern.

I suppose I would argue that privacy and security should be a design concern. Not that it should necessarily be an issue for every protocol, but certainly for anything intended to widely replace something like HTTP or other very common internet protocols.

> I think it's quite reasonable for a spec to accommodate implementations that want to make various optimizations that sacrifice user privacy.

Sometimes it really is enough just to know that something is extremely fragile, or insecure, or easy to exploit. People can decide for themselves if they want to use it or not according to their needs. I have written a large number of programs for my own personal use where I made the intentional decision to neglect security. Because only I use them, and I know what the dangers are, and only I control the inputs it's not really an issue.

In some situations/environments there are still valid uses for older protocols like FTP even though more secure options now exist, but certainly if a new version of FTP was being designed I would expect it to try to correct the known issues with past versions.

It's not really a problem if Google designs QUIC to allow users to be tracked anywhere they go on the internet and it makes services vulnerable to DoS attacks. It's much more of a problem when those problems become part of HTTP and users who disable or refuse to accept HTTP/3 connections for their own protection are at risk of being cut off from large swaths of the www.
All we need now is a proper virtualized Linux sandbox. The hardware can do it. The OS can do it (the primitives are all there). UTM is a thing, but I don't want to jailbreak anything.

OTOH, I think Apple's priorities might well give us a calculator app first.
But we have thrown money at the problem and for years haven't gotten a result. After the Higgs: Silence... nothing new.
No, the idea is to do lots and lots of small science instead of one big one, because we'll probably learn more from that.
Too bad they don't offer a free trial (with a lot of limitations, of course).
If we solve fusion, surely we have a lot of cheap energy (and attendant economic output) to throw at solving physics?
It is an attempt at a legal disclaimer. It may not hold up in court.
My home computer (which I also use for smart working) is from 2010, I updated it with a couple of SSDs instead of mechanical hard drives and I added 4GB of ram (totalling 8GB) but it is perfectly capable of my working needs. I only have Linux on this PC (and I only use Linux at work too), so I think this is the main reason it's aging so well. Other colleagues with Windows have various slowness problems, with more recent machines.
iOS 16 Adds Support for Nintendo Switch's Joy-Cons and Pro Controller
This is correct. A system like the NES, SNES or Genesis never loaded any graphics or code into RAM unless they were doing special tricks. It was all ROM mapped into the CPU address space.

Larger games, especially on systems with a 16-bit address bus (64 kbyte address space), included memory mapping hardware on the carts to swap in and out graphics as needed. It was still all in ROM.
Really good!! I didn't know that bullet gem avoids this kind of N+1, with Proposite seems safer. Great article! :)
If you ask me, no employee has ever been paid too much money for anything ever. It's a job, making money is the whole point, the more the better. No such thing as too much for any level of seniority/responsibilities/skill.
I don't think that's true. CERN itself didn't create many (any?) successful companies. People who worked at CERN went on to create companies, but that doesn't create any money for CERN.

Happy to be corrected.
Even if you claim that you are legally not responsible for any abuses of this software do you feel any moral responsibility?
To be fair, if I pay for my personal domain name - at 8.99 a year, for the next..6 decades, then that will last longer then I am likely to live.

So the total outlay would be around $540. The biggest issue with that is the possibility the registrar ceases existing over that time period.
ATM I'm looking for bugs I can address with either TLA+[1] (hello concurrency) or Alloy[2] (hello design exploration).

Other times I had some linear algebra stuff I was working on, so I learned a bit of Octave[3] to generate test cases with a (hopefully) correct implementation.

I'm still looking for opportunities to try Z3[4] though... (e.g. http://phrack.org/issues/69/4.html#article see "How I Cheat at Maths - Z3 101").

1: https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

2: https://alloytools.org/

3: https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/index

4: https://github.com/z3prover/z3
Wow, such an effective & relevant overview. I’m 30yo, and this is first time I’ve ever subscribed to a website newsletter.
FPGA based open source BMC hardware platform, OCP DC-SCM compatible
>As a low-energy quantum physicist...

===

Thats just how I read your comment to begin with.

In Steven Wrights voice.

"People ask me what I'm into... Low energy quantum physics... its basically everything"
I don't think Ukraine is taking over Donetsk by force.
We can't directly use the particles that are being discovered, but we can use the theories that they can confirm to be correct.

By confirming a theory you can use the entire framework to come up with useful ideas. This is what happened to General relativity.

If people only asked "ok, that star is a little bit off, but will that lead us to faster horses?" would look funny in hindsight.
Domain names were historically much cheaper and the price for acquiring one was effectively administrative fees before domain names became a highly profitable and competitive market. Some domains are still free, whether 3rd/4th level domain from eu.org, or 2nd level domain from public-service TLDs like .ml (Mali) or .ga (Gabon).

It's a shame we have to pay at all for what is essentially a text entry in a database. I'm not opposed to having commercial domains (.com) or private TLDs paying off infrastructure for all other users, but i believe it's an essential component to a free Internet that anybody can own many names for free. Many projects would have died before birth if not for friendly operators giving away names or a shell account and some storage space on a server.

Economic barriers kill innovation, especially from poorer countries where 10$/y is not cheap, or for people for whom access to banking services is not easy/guaranteed (such as homeless or indebted folks in western countries).
Why not take the 100 billion from somewhere other than frontier physics research. I always consider these articles small minded since the people writing them don't consider projects outside of their domain that eat up more funding than something like LHC++. It's such a zero sum situation where there is a 100 billion grant for grabs and the author wants it spent on one project in place of this one.

The more research we do the better and 100 billion spent over approx 20 years by over a dozen countries is a far cry from putting all our eggs in one basket.
I think the percentage of subscribed (paying or gifted) users is way higher on Twitch than on Youtube.
It seems to me as if the journalist had to write about something [outrageous] to fulfill their article quota? There are some good ideas buried in there but isn't it a reductive vision indeed? There probably is no reason to fund this and all the good ideas he also mentions.

We also need BIG SCIENCE to solve global warming and many more issues.

Let's not narrow our focus on some fiscal numbers that are basically inconsequential for such a rich place as is the case with Europe.

Let's do the opposite instead. Let's bet on an actual vision for once again - I miss the 1960s!
> Also as someone who's grandmother started her own software company and was a programmer since the days of punchcards, I find these "what about grandma" appeals very repetitive and kind of insulting.

Your grandmother sounds like a genuinely very impressive person, given that it would have been a much more difficult career to forge as a woman in the timeframe from punchcards forward, even up to the present day.

Respectfully, I don't believe you are insulted. I think you know what was meant by the above, and chose to be insulted.

Your overall argument is also not wrong, but kind of irrelevant. This is HN - everyone here is a tech enthusiast. We are not Apple's target market. Removing the guardrails would cost them revenue and headaches.

Whether or not companies should be made to allow arbitrary software to run on devices is a different question entirely, has no clear and simple answer, and I'm not sure who would have the authority to make that happen.
There's been an outbreak of hepatitis recently which has resulted in a number of deaths and is very probably Covid-related.

There's also a significant risk of Long Covid, although the details are still being debated.

Covid attacks the immune system and also hugely increases the risk of complications from micro-clotting. It's certainly not a disease to be casual about, in either kids or adults.
This year has already seen plenty of layoffs and far more will come. Some companies even rescinded job offerings. The economic situation isn't suited for hiring, especially not so many people.

But, even worse, it's a bank.
Firefox and Chrome don't allow permission prompts without user input. That's why all news sites will show you a banner asking you to click it to enable notifications.

I believe Firefox doesn't show the prompt at the top at all anymore nowadays and just has a glowing notification bubble in the address bar, but it's been a while.
So was it really worth it to make it so damn complicated and put it out of range for most developers and existing programs in terms of implementation effort, sidestepping IP networking even, for actual hypertext transport when the web is contracting as we speak? Ignoring incidental use of HTTP for "REST APIs" (an oxymoron in itself).
I can only assume you're somehow extrapolating this from Article 14 of the Basic Law for Germany, but the other half of your assumptions are at the same time contrary to it. Reimbursement is written directly into that law.[0]

About six years ago there was a publication summing up the current state of affairs[1]. I believe we can safely say your comment doesn't reflect it at all.

[0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_14.html

[1]: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/414774/826f537e22a405...
Recently I also started coding before breakfast, but in my case it's for work. This is the only way to get something done before a deluge of meetings, bug reports and support requests starts. I'll definitely keep using that timeframe for my personal projects once my day job becomes more organized.

BTW. Contrary to you, I've always considered myself a night owl.
My laptop is from 2016 (Dell inspiron 15), daily use and I expect to spend at least 6 more years with it, no reasons to change, and for the sake of the environment let's consume less
I am surprised Munsell Color system was not mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system

It is basically for when you want colors of different hue (chroma) but similar saturation and luminosity.
your->you're (too late to edit, sorry)
I wonder how that setting up the lock screen flow is gonna look with my less than photogénique camera roll
Anything compared to the US annual military budget seems cheap and a good idea.

PS: Dear commenter, please don't "how about X?" in comments. I know you're smart. So smart you can find a counter example. Congratulations, you're clever.
Under what charges? If we're talking about the US, they have the first ammendment and all that. As for defamation laws and similar, the person who used the tool for those purposes would be on the hook, not the creators.
Well I agree that big projects make sense in many cases, and I don't want to be misunderstood as arguing against basic research.

Frankly, given the amounts we spend on things I fundamentally disagree with, I'd even say "sure let them have at it and let's find another 100B somewhere in the military budgets of the world, divert them to more research."

But even if you want to focus on "big, milestone" projects like the LHC[++] you can go for other challenges where you know that there's a tangible benefit to be had at the end.

Fusion research for example comes to mind. Hugely expensive, interesting, rewarding if successful, track record of secondary inventions.

I'm sure there are others. Off the top of my head, carbon capture and storage, better (more sustainable) battery/storage tech, elimination of rare earths in electronics, ...

There's no shortage of big, hard problems
Cool! I like tiny encoders. I teach assembly programming at a university where one of the final assignments in the course is making a decoder for something similar to LZ77 in Cortex M3 (thumb 2) assembly. Best I could do is 15 instructions / 40 bytes found here: https://gist.github.com/ManDeJan/fd1c625e3540faa41d03736eb94... .
I've a different view on this, which comes more and more relevant with pollution and climate changes. It's to consume for things you really need and minimize your environmental footprint
Maybe related in case you are charging the macbook from the left side: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/363337/how-to-find...
> In fact, they probably think they’re high skill level because they’re working in a bank and banks are elite, right?

Over last two years I had to work with few people who worked in banking as C# developers, they all had 8-12 years of experience and they wrote worst, most outdated, unreadable and untestable spaghetti code I've ever seen. First week on the job I've added StyleCop to all our projects because I just couldn't stand people being unable to press one shortcut to format their own code(or install an extension to do that for them). This way it wasn't me pointing out ugly code, it was the pipeline, 'pls fix'.

Obviously there are people and people, but so far I've only noticed that developers who worked in banking institutions usually have a lot of experience in that one or two particular companies and they barely can do anything of value on their own.
Convenience. It's the reason for most mass-market uptake.
I'd say the question is "Can I code iPad apps on an iPad?" I would not really expect iPadOS to become a regular developer enviroment for, like Java, Python or C#. I understand Swift Playgrounds can create some types of apps, but are iPadOS apps written on iPads?

Until I can plug a screen and a keyboard to my iPad and write something as sophisticated as Cultured Code's Things on it, there is still ways to go.
That sounds horrific.
And I'm all for kids playing team sports.

Key word being playing. It helped me learn teamwork and good sportsmanship, which is supposed to be the point.
I have no expertise on the subject or those particular accusations, but generally speaking I feel that a company's response to bad PR is probably not the most trustworthy and objective account of what has happened given their direct involvement in the matter. It seems as a given that they would want to refute it.