skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Videos on YouTube will get 800x more views than views on yourownvideowebsite.com (assuming you aren’t a major Hollywood studio). Donald Trump went from 90 million followers on Twitter to 3.2 million followers on his own Twitter clone, and he has such a loyal following that people literally committed treason for him. Network effects are impossible to ignore
I think it's a great counterpoint. It's unnatural behaviour, even for NDT. He applies the technique where it clearly doesn't work - right in the middle of someone talking.
People never bother fact checking internet rage, so thank you for that.
I use kdenlive for quite a bit. Crashing can be a problem when using the system repo version, but when using the flatpak it's very stable. If you haven't tried that, I would recommend it.
When you say unnecessary training it's not clear to me whether you're making a general statement or talking about details.

For example if a servicemember volunteers for paratrooper school and gets badly hurt on a jump then I'm going to assume the training was necessary because that's what the school is for. The people at the school are experts and it's a waste of military resources to put a trained servicemember out of commission permanently and the school will be held responsible so everyone has a strong incentive to be careful. However it sounded sort of like you were saying a paratrooper unit doesn't need to practice jumping so much because they'll probably never need to do that.

On the other hand if you're saying that the military should more aggressively investigate safer training techniques where that can be done with no loss of quality then I'm all for that. Maybe some training can be done with VR simulations in a wind tunnel before you actually send people up in a plane, awesome.

Also I'm sure you support veteran care, I was just adding that if the military decides some unit is necessary, then they need to train that unit appropriately, and (here's my part) they need to bear the full cost of any potential injury. Given how badly veterans are sometimes treated I felt that should be said.
Just an anecdote from a very smart coworker who is a also a Mensa member: he told me that the local Mensa chapter discussions about their chapter organization were very similar to a basic discussion with neighbours.

It also reminds me of a Salvador Dali interview [1] saying that he is every day more anti-Dalinian and if they were 2k Picassos, 30 Dalis, 50 Einsteins, the world would be unhabitable.

[1] https://youtu.be/B9Rn7pz2TGE?t=292
I doubt it actually told you anything about their engineering culture. Companies with all sorts of different cultures are copy and pasting processes, there's no reason to expect it to be super representative of anything.
Nit: homebrew is not from Apple and is not even limited to Apple platforms.
I have an S5 which I updated with some firmware generated from a site Dan Giese was running but I don't recall Valetudo as a name.

But I would have loved to be able to simply buy one pre-rooted AND pay $50-$100 extra for it. I honestly think there is a market for "same robot as your neighbour, but not spying on you!" I'd buy two more for my parents.

But I'd want it to be clear about what they are doing. Like https://www.flashrouters.com/
> advancement in construction productivity ... will take an entirely new generation of bright, ambitious, and innovative individuals

Lack of those is not the cause of construction cost overruns, so increasing their supply would not help. Cost overruns are a deliberate consequence of wholly-legal institutional corruption, which no one shows any appetite for rooting out. Ingesting exemplary individuals just generates disillusioned individuals out the other end.
That's twice the code for the same result. Also, `validate_signature` itself might have lots of similar code, like

def validate_signature(request):
signature = sig_from_request(request)
payload = payload_from_request(request)
check_signature(payload, signature)

where each of those nested calls follows the same pattern.

Yeah, you can do all of that with passing around error objects. A lot of people writing Go do that every day, so obviously it works and it's not overwhelmingly tedious. I highly prefer the Python style of EAFP though.
Reactors can provide peak power no problems, the incentive not to is you burn fuel at a higher rate then you need to since you can't ramp quickly. But in a small scale scenario you could easily oversize the reactor to service the local area, and sell any excess on the grid as though it were a renewable utility.
> Free software / open source licenses have effectively made copyright disappear for open source code.

[...]

> I think open source software is a good example of what happens when you get rid of copyright - people still feel ownership for what they make [...]

I think this is a quite a stretch given the prominence of copyright in popular open source licenses, including (for example) the extremely popular and permissive MIT license. You can copy it, modify it, distribute it, etc., but I still own the copyright, and you still have to give me credit for the initial development. I can choose whatever license I want, which may or may not impose restrictions on who can use my code in derivative works, etc., and how.

In a very real sense, I do own the FOSS software I've released to the world. If legal codification of that ownership isn't important to open source developers, why are so many pixels spent discussing it?
If I steal 50 Disney DVDs from a store (and they aren't recovered by the police) the store's insurance will reimburse the store for the loss, and then the store will order more DVDs to refill their stock. Disney actually comes out ahead in that case, believe it or not
The underlying organizational problem then becomes the fact that performance isn't priority number 1. I would suspect that if the perf was taken seriously, some time spent on profiling would immediately reveal this issue.
Open source security fears are fading away
My Story with the Apache Software Foundation
There is a discussion about the lack of support here -

(https://github.com/github-community/community/discussions/77... - released by end of June)
From Python to NumPy (2017)
> Critics say that the road will simply attract more traffic, but the way in which it is managed means that traffic is dispersed and therefore means there is less congestion than your average motorway.

What's the incentive for a UK construction talent agency to defend it? I don't actually grok any road traffic science aside from repeatedly seeing induced demand[0] mentioned; is there any truth in that?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
‘Academic’ Torrent Client Hopes to Shake Up the Entertainment Industry (2020)
We've all heard it before: if you don't want to do the time don't do the crime. It doesn't matter how stupid or inhumane the law might be - that's a different fight. Fight that fight if you like, but don't break the law in the meantime cause someone will want you in prison. 40 months? Seems like a lot. Probably wanted to think twice about what they were doing.
I did. He lays out several possible solutions but notes that none are proven. That’s what I’m criticizing: I’ve seen these claims made before, and they were never proven.
I feel the long file issue is mostly gone - that the problem isn’t the file length but spaghetti code. If it makes sense to be in one file it should be in one file. Breaking it up simply to reduce file length is counter productive.
I hear you! Sounds like an awesome way to use your truck. But what I'm getting at is the question of if lots of/most F-150 owners tow anything at all? Or tow regularly enough to care like you care? Is this really for the folks who just want a truck rather than the folks who actually use it?
Ok, you obviously have zero interest in an actual discussion, lest it confront your completely fabricated "facts". So for anyone else who's genuinely interested in more than just pontificating their own bs, the "special teams" this person mocked, rather than asked about, can be learned about here:

https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed.html
It's never been achieved because it was never really tried. To reiterate, what USSR and China had was not communism even according to themselves - I'm not even talking about impartial outside observers here! - so, pray tell, how is it the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
> neither of which are part of any materials science course that I'm familiar with. The knock on effect of changing the vessel specs would essentially require a complete rework unless the reactor were de-rated in either safety, generation capacity or lifespan.

At one point I learned there were standard tombs describing (presumably often unexpected) Nuclear Plant Phenomenology.
NASA to figure out how to get data on unexplained objects in the sky
> Free software / open source licenses have effectively made copyright disappear for open source code.

And some of those licenses are being rethought by companies as they realize that that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can just take their work, put it on AWS as SAAS and capture most if not all of that value.
IMO it still has to be something you’re okay with doing for, like, 10 years. Don’t fall so in love with an idea that you can’t give it up and pivot, but also don’t get stuck doing something you hate.
Watching your "Hide all the crap" gif made me realize you could do this:

> View: Toggle Activity Bar Visibility

Much nicer, thank you!
Isn't this really just observing a quantum system that would extremely expensive to compute?

Let me give an analogy: protein folding. Proteins can be very large consisting of thousands of atoms. Because of the movement of electrons and the electrical and magnetic effects you get, it's difficult to compute the shape of a given molecule. In recent years a ton of progress has been made on this to be clear.

But my point is this: I could construct a protein and then determine its structure experimentally and call that a quantum computer but have I really computed anything? Side note: yes I know some proteins have defied traditional mapping techniques like X-ray diffraction; that's beside the point.

Another thought: large classical systems don't exhibit quantum behaviour. Small so-called quantum systems do. I'm talking things like superposition and entanglement. It's unclear where the boundary between the classical and the quantum actually is or if there even is one.

But information is physical [1] and there are physical limits on how much ifnrmation a system can hold and consequently how much computation a system can perform.

I don't expect quantum computers to be able to "break" this limit as some suggest by merely addin gmore qubits. But who can really say?

[1]: http://greenbyte.ch/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Landauer_1991...
Because you can also install applications via homebrew. I use it for a few things, including installing bat, delta and other Rust coreutil replacements that I prefer. I absolutely do not use homebrew for project dependencies.
This is very concise and well-informed. Here are three things that I really liked:

[1]
A discussion of risk and mitigations, last paragraph under "Secondary questions".

This is an excellent way to squarely confront possible objections by reviewers. It shows you understand what problems might come up, and shows the mitigation(s). It can be presented as a "risk list" with possible mitigations for each (a two-column table). Risk mitigations can include alternative technical approaches, or schedule adjustments, or descopes if the sponsor allows it. More formally, columns for a qualitative likelihood of the risk being realized (1-5), and a severity if it is (1-5).

Think broadly about risks. "Postdoc cannot be found" is a risk. "Experimental data contaminated by systematic effects" is also a risk.

[2]
Advocating for a top-level statement, within the first couple of paragraphs, of the problem to be solved, why it matters, and how it will be done. If you can't do this in two or perhaps 3 sentences, you are confused and should think more carefully about what you're proposing. I'd go even farther and say one should aspire to have the first 3 words of the proposal be "We propose to ...", with the whole thing laid out in one sentence.

Do not have the first couple of paragraphs be problem background. It's not a science paper.

[3]
Adapt narrative to the proposal format (OP under "Adapt to the funder"). Those categories in the template are there for a reason -- to simplify comparing proposals -- but you have to take some license to be sure you're not repeating, and that the document still is readable from top-to-bottom.

*

My own bad or poorly-conceived proposals have signaled trouble by repeating themselves -- same or similar paragraphs or long sentences in the abstract, then in the introduction, then in the motivation or conclusion. This either indicates a bad cut-and-paste job, or that thought has been suspended.

*

The summary mentions generating excitement. One way to do that is to think about storytelling techniques.

A classic storytelling technique is the "undiscovered country" plot, e.g. a 2D plot of (say) wavelength vs. telescope observing time that illustrates why having (say) a UV telescope with very long integration times will enable a new class of objects to be seen.

Another "win story" can be developed by answering "why now" -- what combination of data and technical know-how makes this the right time to do this work? Basically, inevitable that someone must do this right away.
Hah! Congrats, I even remember using the first incarnation. I don't think I'll ever be resurrecting any of my old projects, it's not for want of backups but to re-launch any of that stuff on today's much more hostile www would require a massive amount of rework and I don't have the energy for that. But very nice to see that you did and I'm curious how many others will follow your example.
The only relevant thing that comes immediately to mind is to train yourself to suppress the urge to mmmaaa and hmmm in your talking. A little bit of silence comes across a lot better (as you considering the answer, as opposed to flailing for words).
Definitely, better marketing around differentiation.

I'm a huge dork for open standards, I frequently miss the days of Gaim/Pidgin and having Google Talk be Jabber/XMPP underneath, and being able to IM my friends wherever. Personally, I'm probably going to dork around with Matrix/Element because it sounds like my kind of thing.

But I can't figure why I'd switch to it for work.

I moved my company recently from Teams to Mattermost. The UX was the biggest selling point. Collaboration happens in Mattermost in ways it simply couldn't happen in Teams.

Putting aside the fact that we're not going to churn company comms every quarter for funzies, why would I switch us to Element? What can I do with Element that I can't do with Mattermost or Rocket.Chat or Slack or anything else?
"Fragmentation" is a derogatory term that means "people doing what they want with the software that they own." The alternative is some priesthood deciding everything for us. Fuck that. My desktop is perfect.

Says he sees the problems with the Linux desktop, and only lists one that isn't a problem to anyone actually using a Linux desktop. What about the herculean task of kernel maintenance? Central repository maintenance? There are tons of real problems we can discuss that aren't mentioned.
They’re taking applicants.
Where I live there is a shopping plaza that does quite well overall with a very busy chain home improvement store and supermarket. Some other stores like Starbucks that seem to do very well also. But the central mall anchored by largely defunct department stores is effectively dead.

At the same time , as you say, there are vibrant shopping malls within 30-45 minutes.
A hammer, perhaps?
The article says Ethereum’s tx rate is 20-30 per second, and Bitcoin’s is 7. That’s what I’m going off.
the comment which spawned this chain is:

> If push came to shove we might just consider making better software?

as you say, "a _lot_ of software out there runs in the 'hardware is my driving cost' locale." if something changed -- say, we lost access to high-end fabs -- then my argument is that we have room to focus higher on the stack to make this far less impactful than it would otherwise be. in most places, software is not "optimal", as you seem to agree. in very few places have we even calculated a bound of what optimal _is_. the HPC example was to highlight the latter part: we shift from something like a linear gradient descent to some different descent algorithm and it works better in practice. ML training techniques are always changing to get faster convergence. very, very few of these HPC areas have actual, well-defined performance bounds. it's just a tradeoff of "how much do we invest in algorithms" v.s. "how much do we invest in hardware". i read GP as suggesting otherwise, based on the content of the comment they were replying to.

i'm not even sure there's a disagreement between you and i. maybe not even between me and sneak. i kinda wonder if all of us here just have a different number in mind for what qualifies as "mostly quite efficient". i'm completely confident we have at least 2x perf gains sitting around in just about any computational area that's presently dominated by hardware costs (e.g. HPC, but not e.g. packet-switching/networking). 10x perf gains in many of them: not by micro-optimizing things like memory allocations, but by being inventive with algorithms. that kind of gain is meaningful to me in this area: enough that i wouldn't dismiss it as "mostly quite efficient" as a rebuttal against that original "if push came to show we might just consider making better software".
>There are countries where no combination of renewables + storage is possible. Places with little sunlight and little wind.

which places are these? I'm not sure they exist.
WFH does have cons and you've expressed them well here.

While I still think the pros outweigh the cons, WFH does make it more difficult to connect with colleagues and develop that team and company spirit.

Personally, I think a hybrid approach is best.
Certification is generally binary, though - you're either certified or you're not. This might be a good thing though, as it establishes a decent floor for technical competency and can save everyone from having to deal with at least some of the technical interview nonsense.

What some of the people in these comments seem to want though is some sort of standardized score/ranking system, which I suspect might lead to even more nightmarish outcomes than the current leetcode-y interview processes. (e.g. Employers setting absurdly high cutoff scores, choosing one applicant over another because simply because they scored a couple points higher, applicants grinding unimaginable amounts of unpaid hours to bump up their scores a bit, etc.)
This is super exciting. But slightly off-topic question: has innovation in identity management plateaued? This is coming from someone who works in a fairly large identity management team. Functionally I can’t figure out what’s the next big thing in our domain. Even passwordless stuff feels like an evolution. Is there any academic work being done in this space?
Renewables have the structural advantage that costs are relatively transparent. N units x P per unit x fractional overhead k (<<2) is C, expected cost.
Oh yeah I'd she'll out in an instant for an iPad if I could put android on it.
Ways that animals perceive the world
I think it's off-putting if you ask someone a question and they stare into your eyes for 7 seconds.

"Hmm" and "That is a good question" are good loading indicators. "Errr" and "Uhh" are loading indicators too, just a little harsher. You can be silent and look at the ground, finger to chin, as long as it's clear you'retthinking.
That's just splitting hairs. The weights don't matter. What matters is that the EAs claim that their maths measure the morality of actions.

It doesn't matter if they disagree over the parameters, what matters is that they agree their maths quantify morality. That is the objectivity that they claim.

And they even have spreadsheets to do it, huh? Wow. But, what are these spreadsheets calculating then? I mean, how can you calculate something subjective? If a quantity is subjective, then why can't I calculate it any way I like? If I can calculate a quantity any way I like, then does that quantity really measure anything? Can I use E = mc² to calculate the morality of my actions? If not, why not?

That stuff just doesn't make any sense, sorry.

> I disagree with everything you wrote, and I doubt you can find a prominent EA who doesn't.

"Prominent", huh? Interesting hedging there. Why should I care that someone is "prominent"? Don't peoples' opinions count if they're not "prominent"? And what's "prominent" anyway? Like, X followers on Instagram?

You know, the more I'm having this conversation, the more it sounds to me like some weird kind of Silicon Valley roleplaying that's just out of touch with reality.
It depends on who cares, and how much. The world isn't one-size-fits-all, and if 90+% of internet users are happy with a platform that arbitrarily bans users or censors content as long as it supports the marquee tag, that's their business. Conversely, I could see using a system that only gets me a very limited amount of content as long as I consider it to be high quality, and if my friends' ex-wives or people I haven't seen since high school and wasn't close to then never use the system, well, I think I can handle that.
Yeah, crypto isn't awesome in my view, but I've been trying to play devils advocate for myself to challenge my opinion. Thus far no dice until this. It's not much, but it atleast helps me confirm my view that crypto isn't living up to it's value prop.
(incidentally: if this stuff interests you take a guess at how far those electrons really move during 1/100th or 1/120th of a second and then check the physics to see how far they really travel, the answer may surprise you).
Further discussion from the author :

https://theconversation.com/65-000-year-old-stone-swiss-army...

Original paper :

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-12677-5
smimesign supports timestamping with a normal timestamp server, with a bit of extra effort. It would be cool if your tool could (at least optionally) do the same as an alternative to your custom transparency log.

https://github.com/github/smimesign/issues/47#issuecomment-4...
This is like a philosophers stone of swe or what fred brooks referred to as “silver bullet”, good luck ;)
Generate a personalized learning guide for any subject with GPT-3
> the world sucks in general

It does! But like the other HN post about software complexity, it has a lot to do with our ever-increasing expectations and demands.

When email was just plain text, it was way easier to deal with. Now it's rare to receive an email which does not have and image or more in addition to the text (which itself may be plain and html (a non-standard, host+client specific subset of).

I gave up on using email clients. I now just use web clients. Consequently I have 4 email websites I regularly use. But at least when crap fails, it's not a problem on my end, and there's no point in spending time to troubleshoot. Honestly, stuff rarely fails. Gmail website works for me usually. Zoho works always (or at least I've never caught it with a problem). Tutanota works mostly, sometimes awkwardly. Protonmail works as long as you understand it.

My complaint is cloud storage. They all fall down, except for Tresorit; but it's rather expensive.